O.C.G.A. § 40-6-48 (2019)

Annotations

Cross references. - Designation of travel lanes for exclusive or preferential use of buses and other designated passenger vehicles, § 32-9-4. Central lane for turning, § 40-6-126.

Code Commission notes. - Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1989, ‘‘and’’ was added at the end of paragraph (4).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Justified stop. - Police officer’s observation of the defendant weaving out of the defendant’s lane justified the finding of the court that the stopping of the car was not pretextual, but justified. Davis v. State, 236 Ga. App. 32, 510 S.E.2d 889 (1999). Because the defendant was witnessed crossing the white traffic line on two occasions, the stop of the defendant’s vehicle was valid under Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XIII; the defendant’s weaving without reason into nearby lanes violated O.C.G.A. § 40-6-48(1) and justified the stop, and the officer’s actual motive in stopping the defendant was inconsequential. Rayo-Leon v. State, 281 Ga. App. 74, 635 S.E.2d 368 (2006). In an in rem forfeiture case in which: (1) the initial traffic stop of the van was reasonable and did not implicate the Fourth Amendment since a law enforcement officer had probable cause to believe that the claimant violated Georgia traffic law by twice violating O.C.G.A. § 40-6-48; (2) the seven minutes it took to effectuate the traffic stop was reasonable; and (3) the search of the van was lawful because of a drug dog’s positive alert, the district court did not err in denying a claimant’s motion to suppress. United States v. $ 175,722.77, in United States Currency, 307 Fed. Appx. 257 (11th Cir. 2007) (Unpublished). Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by a traffic stop because there was probable cause that the defendant violated O.C.G.A. § 40-6-48(1) by weaving between lanes, various factors went beyond an inchoate hunch and amounted to reasonable suspicion of other illegal activity, and prolonging detention for three minutes was not unreasonable. Also, any discovery violation under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(4) did not prejudice the defendant’s substantial rights in that it was irrelevant to the outcome of the suppression hearing. United States v. Robin-

son, 272 Fed. Appx. 774 (11th Cir. 2008) (Unpublished). Before an officer stopped the defendant’s vehicle, the officers observed the defendant fail to maintain the defendant’s lane in violation of O.C.G.A. § 40-6-48(1) and such a violation provided the officer with probable cause for the stop. United States v. Garcia, 284 Fed. Appx. 791 (11th Cir. 2008) (Unpublished). Defendant’s conviction for DUI per se in violation of O.C.G.A. § 40-6-391(a)(5) was upheld. The traffic stop of the defendant was proper because the officer observed the defendant driving erratically, including sudden braking and weaving within the lane, even though the defendant was acquitted of failure to operate the vehicle within a single lane, O.C.G.A. § 40-6-48(1). Ivey v. State, 301 Ga. App. 796, 689 S.E.2d 100 (2009). Trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress because the officer was justified in stopping the defendant’s vehicle based on the videotaped evidence that established that the officer observed the defendant’s vehicle failing to maintain the vehicle’s lane in violation of O.C.G.A. § 40-6-48(1). Acree v. State, 319 Ga. App. 854, 737 S.E.2d 103 (2013). Officer’s observation of the defendant’s vehicle crossing the fog line three times provided sufficient justification for an initial traffic stop. Calcaterra v. State, 321 Ga. App. 874, 743 S.E.2d 534 (2013). Officer’s qualified immunity following traffic stop. - Officer was entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity as to an arrestee’s Fourth Amendment claim regarding the stop of the arrestee’s vehicle because the officer had arguable reasonable suspicion to stop the arrestee since the officer responded to an off-duty officer’s report that the arrestee was driving at an unusual speed and weaving across the road, and the off-duty

officer identified the vehicle. Jenkins v. Gaither, No. 12-15631, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 20296 (11th Cir. Oct. 4, 2013) (Unpublished). Indictment. - Indictment stating that defendant ‘‘did fail to operate his motor vehicle entirely within a single lane of traffic. . .’’ was not deficient because the indictment did not allege that the defendant failed to ascertain whether the defendant could move from the defendant’s lane safely. Harridge v. State, 243 Ga. App. 658, 534 S.E.2d 113 (2000). Defendant’s conviction for failure to keep the defendant’s vehicle within a single lane of traffic could not stand; although there was evidence to support the charge, the accusation filed against the defendant stated the wrong road for where the violation occurred, and therefore, there was insufficient evidence to convict the defendant of the charge stated in the accusation. Thrasher v. State, 292 Ga. App. 566, 666 S.E.2d 28 (2008). Inconsistent verdict could not form basis for attacking DUI conviction. - Fact that the jury found the defendant not guilty of a charge of failing to maintain a lane could not be a basis for attacking the guilty verdict for driving under the influence of alcohol under O.C.G.A. § 40-6-391(a)(1). Renkiewicz v. State, 283 Ga. App. 692, 642 S.E.2d 384 (2007). Failure to request jury charge. - When the defendant did not request a charge on a violation of O.C.G.A. § 40-6-48 as the predicate for finding the defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of vehicular homicide in the second degree, the charge that was given by the trial court was sufficient and there was no error. Collum v. State, 195 Ga. App. 42, 392 S.E.2d 301 (1990). Issue should have been submitted to jury. - Trial court erred by granting summary judgment to the defendants in a wrongful death action upon concluding that the plaintiffs’ decedent was 50 percent or more responsible for the decedent’s own death because there was an issue of fact as to whether the decedent would have died but for the presence of the tractor-trailer illegally parked in the emergency lane. Reed v. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co., 327 Ga. App. 130, 755 S.E.2d 356 (2014).

Suppression motion properly denied. - Because a sheriff ’s deputy lawfully stopped the defendant for twice crossing the center line in violation of O.C.G.A. § 40-6-48(1), and given that: (1) the deputy sheriff ’s specialized DUI training; and (2) the defendant’s admission of ingesting alcohol, failure to maintain lane, bloodshot eyes, performances on several field sobriety tests, and strong odor of alcohol, the evidence seized in connection with the stop was admissible; moreover, the defendant’s claim that the state failed to establish a violation of § 40-6-48(1) and the defendant’s eventual acquittal of failure to maintain a lane were not determinative of whether the traffic stop was lawful. Steinberg v. State, 286 Ga. App. 417, 650 S.E.2d 268 (2007), cert. denied, No. S07C1725, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 113 (Ga. 2008). Defendant unsuccessfully argued that a law enforcement officer lacked probable cause to make a stop because the officer caused the defendant to drive in an erratic, unsafe manner. What the testimony at the evidentiary hearing fairly showed was that the defendant, over a matter of seconds, attempted to make three lane changes, twice pulling into lanes occupied by other vehicles, causing one to brake and sound the vehicle’s horn to avoid collision; the officer had probable cause to stop the defendant for the defendant’s violations of O.C.G.A. §§ 40-6-48 and