Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 28
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-729 (2026)

Driving on roadways laned for traffic

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

28-729. Driving on roadways laned for traffic

If a roadway is divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic, the following rules in addition to all others consistent with this section apply:

1. Except as provided in sections 28-778 and 28-903, a person shall drive a vehicle as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not move the vehicle from that lane until the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety.

2. On a roadway that is divided into three lanes, a person shall not drive a vehicle in the center lane except when overtaking and passing another vehicle where the roadway is clearly visible and the center lane is clear of traffic within a safe distance, or in preparation for a left turn or where the center lane is at the time allocated exclusively to traffic moving in the direction the vehicle is proceeding and is signposted to give notice of the allocation.

3. Official signs may be erected directing slow-moving traffic to use a designated lane or designating those lanes to be used by traffic moving in a particular direction regardless of the center of the roadway, and drivers of vehicles shall obey the directions of every sign.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1962–2026 · leading case: State v. Livingston, 75 P.3d 1103 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Livingston, 75 P.3d 1103 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 8× “Livingston filed a motion to suppress evidence and argued, inter alia, that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop her vehicle because she had not violated any laws.”
State v. Gutierrez, 381 P.3d 254 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “2003), in which an officer stopped a driver for violating A.R.S. § 28-729(1) (2016). In relevant part, that statute requires a motorist to “drive a vehicle as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane.”
Glazer v. State, 321 P.3d 470 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 6× “§ 28-729(1), which directs that “[a] person shall drive a vehicle as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not move the vehicle from that lane until the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety.”
Lewis v. Warner, 802 P.2d 1053 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 4× “§ 28-473, a class 1 misdemeanor), 2) making an unsafe lane change (A.R.S. § 28-729, a civil traffic offense), 3) use of fictitious plates (A.”
Bliss v. Treece, 658 P.2d 169 (Ariz. 1983). · cites it 2× “A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from that lane until the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety..”
State v. Acosta, 801 P.2d 489 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 28-729(1) states: “A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from that lane until the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety.”
State of Arizona v. Michael Anthony Salcido, 362 P.3d 508 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “Because we conclude that Rice had reasonable suspicion based on the illegal lane change, we do not reach the issues of whether either Salcido’s violation of A.R.S. § 28-729(1), or the concerned citizen tip, also justified the stop.”
State of Arizona v. Vivek a Patel, 486 P.3d 188 (Ariz. 2021). “The State countered that the limitation 1 The enumerated statutes in 2017 set forth at subsection (A) consisted of: (1) § 28-645(A)(3)(a), obeying a red light; (2) § 28-729, proper travel within a lane; (3) § 28-771, yielding at an intersection; (4) § 28-772, yielding while…”
Sisk v. Ball, 371 P.2d 594 (Ariz. 1962). · cites it 2× “Part of plaintiff’s theory of the case was that the defendant was negligent because he swerved out of his lane of travel in violation of § 28-729 A.R.S. 1 Violation of a statute enacted for the public safety is negligence per se, Anderson v.”
State v. Gossett, 583 P.2d 1364 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 28-729(1). After he and another officer had stopped appellant, Officer Re-sczenko asked appellant if the officers could search appellant’s car.”
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court, 953 P.2d 926 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). “section 28-729(1) (1989). Prior to trial, Defendant filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence alleging lack of probable cause to arrest.”
Ray v. Starr, 539 P.2d 549 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 6× “§ 28-751(1) pertaining to the making of right turns, or A.R.S. § 28-729(1) pertaining to changing lanes.”
Show all 27 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-729(1) — 18 cases
State v. Livingston, 75 P.3d 1103 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “Livingston filed a motion to suppress evidence and argued, inter alia, that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop her vehicle because she had not violated any laws.”
State v. Gutierrez, 381 P.3d 254 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “2003), in which an officer stopped a driver for violating A.R.S. § 28-729(1) (2016). In relevant part, that statute requires a motorist to “drive a vehicle as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane.”
Glazer v. State, 321 P.3d 470 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “§ 28-729(1), which directs that “[a] person shall drive a vehicle as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not move the vehicle from that lane until the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety.”
Bliss v. Treece, 658 P.2d 169 (Ariz. 1983). “A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from that lane until the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety..”
State v. Acosta, 801 P.2d 489 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). “A.R.S. § 28-729(1) states: “A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from that lane until the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-729(A)(1) — 1 case
State v. Bonds (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.