-
I concur totally in the majority opinion herein except to any characterization that our previous case of State v. Drogi (1994),
96 Ohio App.3d 466 , stood for the proposition that de minimus violations of the traffic laws do not justify reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop. As stated in my dissent to the case of State v. Hodge (June 7, 2002), 7th Dist. No. 01CA76, 2002-Ohio-3053, the case of Drogi did not find a de minimus violation of R.C.4511.33 , failure to travel in marked lanes. That case interpreted what is or is not a violation of R.C.4511.33 . I agree that if a violation of a traffic law is observed, whether de minimus or not, reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop exists.
Document Info
Docket Number: Case No. 01-C.A.-115.
Judges: WAITE, J.
Filed Date: 6/27/2002
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021