Background
At approximately 12:25 a.m., Officer Moeller saw Jennifer Elda Grout’s vehicle stopped in the northbound lane of a two-way public street running through a large parking lot. After waiting behind her for approximately 15 seconds, Moeller initiated a traffic stop because her vehicle was blocking the lane. Grout then pulled into a parking space and explained that she had backed into the road to prevent her boyfriend from driving. She admitted that they had been drinking, and Moeller observed signs of alcohol impairment before arresting her for driving under the influence of intoxicants.
Grout moved to suppress all evidence obtained from the stop, arguing that the officer lacked probable cause to believe she had committed a traffic violation. The trial court concluded that probable cause existed under both Oregon’s illegal-parking statute and ORS 811.130, which prohibits driving in a manner that impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of traffic. A jury subsequently convicted Grout of DUII, and she appealed the suppression ruling.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals held that Moeller had probable cause to stop Grout for impeding traffic under ORS 811.130. The undisputed evidence supported the trial court’s finding that her vehicle remained stopped in and blocked the northbound lane for approximately 15 seconds. Any driver seeking to pass would have needed to enter the oncoming lane, so Grout’s conduct impeded the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.
The court rejected Grout’s argument that she was not impeding traffic because no other vehicles were present. It distinguished precedent involving a vehicle traveling only somewhat below the speed limit, explaining that Grout had stopped completely and blocked an entire travel lane. The street remained a public through street despite running through a parking lot, and the evidence did not indicate that Grout was attempting or waiting to park. Because the stop was supported by probable cause under ORS 811.130, the court did not address the alternative illegal-parking theory and affirmed the denial of suppression and the resulting judgment.
Key Takeaways
- A vehicle that remains completely stopped in a travel lane can violate ORS 811.130 even when no other traffic is present.
- Probable cause existed because the officer reasonably perceived that passing the stopped vehicle would require entering the oncoming lane.
- The court affirmed on the impeding-traffic ground without deciding whether the officer also had probable cause under Oregon’s illegal-parking statute.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Oregon precedent treating the complete obstruction of a travel lane as an impediment to normal and reasonable traffic movement. The absence of additional vehicles does not necessarily defeat probable cause when the stopped vehicle itself blocks the lane.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.