Recently, in State v. Marx, No. 98,059 and 98,060 (Kan. Sept. 18, 2009), the Kansas Supreme Court upheld the suppression of evidence following a traffic stop when the officer’s reason for pulling over the driver was that the car “failed to maintain a single lane.” This type of justification for a traffic stop arises often in DUI cases and drug cases that involve a traffic stop.
The Marx decision held that a vehicle’s failure to maintain a lane is not a sufficient reason for an officer to make a traffic stop of the vehicle. The officer must believe that the failure to stay in the lane was not based on the fact that it was impractical to do so (such as weather conditions, obstacles in the road, etc.). At a suppression hearing, when the State wants to prove the lawfulness of a traffic stop based on the “failure to maintain a lane,” the State must provide the court with evidence of more than “incidental and minimal lane breach.”
The Marx decision was recently relied upon by two different panels of the Court of Appeals in State v. Sullivan, No. 101, 850 (Kan. Ct. App. Oct. 16, 2009) (unpublished) and State v. Jimeson, No. 102,158 (Kan. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2009) (unpublished). Both of these cases involved DUI arrests where the evidence of the traffic stop was ultimately suppressed.
At Bell Folsom, P.A, our attorneys have won the suppression of evidence in traffic stop cases based on the rationale used in the Marx decision. Our attorneys are well versed in the most recent case law regarding traffic stops and are experienced in holding the State to the burden of proving the lawfulness of traffic stops. Contact us today, so we can make our experience work for you.