SJC upholds stop based on minor lane violation.

Byline: Eric T. Berkman

A police officer who pulled over a vehicle that momentarily crossed the right-side "fog line" separating the motorist's lane from the shoulder did not conduct an invalid stop, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in a 4-3 decision.

Though the officer apparently had no reason to believe the defendant was operating under the influence at the time of the stop, his further inquiries during the stop led to an OUI charge and a civil charge under G.L.c. 89, 4A, for a marked-lane violation.

The defendant argued that his onetime two- to three-second crossing of the fog line did not justify the stop and, as a result, all evidence related to the stop should be suppressed.

The SJC disagreed, reversing a suppression order issued in Superior Court.

"We conclude that in this case, where the circumstances suggest that the defendant both failed to operate his motor vehicle entirely within his lane of travel and moved from his lane of travel without first ascertaining the safety of that movement, the defendant violated 4A and the ensuing traffic stop was reasonable," Justice Elspeth B. Cypher wrote for the court.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Barbara A. Lenk wrote that a driver should be considered to have violated Section 4A only if he or she "moves from a marked lane in which one otherwise must drive, or straddles two lanes of travel, when in either event it is unsafe to do so."

Lenk added that requiring the motorist to be actually unsafe would best effectuate the Legislature's intent by "(1) avoiding the barrage of absurdities that follows; (2) harmonizing the statute's language with its core purpose of promoting public safety; and (3) minimizing the likelihood of selective enforcement of our traffic laws."

[box type="shadow" align="alignright" width="325px"]

Commonwealth v. Larose, Lawyers Weekly No. 10-159-19 (32 pages)

THE ISSUE: Did a police officer who pulled over a vehicle for momentarily crossing the right-side "fog line" separating the motorist's lane from the shoulder conduct an invalid stop?

DECISION: No (Supreme Judicial Court)

LAWYERS: Thomas H. Townsend of the Northwestern District Attorney's Office, Northampton (commonwealth)

David R. Rangaviz of the Committee for Public Counsel Services, Boston (defense)[/box]

Unbridled discretion?

Thomas H. Townsend, chief of appeals at the Northwestern District Attorney's Office in Northampton, said in a prepared statement that he was pleased with the court's reasoning and analysis.

...