(A) Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic, or wherever within municipal corporations traffic is lawfully moving in two or more substantially continuous lines in the same direction, the following rules apply:
(1) A vehicle or trackless trolley shall be driven, as nearly as is practicable, entirely within a single lane or line of traffic and shall not be moved from such lane or line until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety.
(2) Upon a roadway which is divided into three lanes and provides for two-way movement of traffic, a vehicle or trackless trolley shall not be driven in the center lane except when overtaking and passing another vehicle or trackless trolley where the roadway is clearly visible and such center lane is clear of traffic within a safe distance, or when preparing for a left turn, or where such center lane is at the time allocated exclusively to traffic moving in the direction the vehicle or trackless trolley is proceeding and is posted with signs to give notice of such allocation.
(3) Official signs may be erected directing specified 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, or restricting the use of a particular lane to only buses during certain hours or during all hours, and drivers of vehicles and trackless trolleys shall obey the directions of such signs.
(4) Official traffic control devices may be installed prohibiting the changing of lanes on sections of roadway and drivers of vehicles shall obey the directions of every such device.
(B) Except as otherwise provided in this division, whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor. If, within one year of the offense, the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to one predicate motor vehicle or traffic offense, whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. If, within one year of the offense, the offender previously has been convicted of two or more predicate motor vehicle or traffic offenses, whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree.
If the offender commits the offense while distracted and the distracting activity is a contributing factor to the commission of the offense, the offender is subject to the additional fine established under section 4511.991 of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 340
cases (78 in the last 5 years), 1963–2026 · leading case: State v. Turner (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 6773 (Ohio 2020).
State v. Turner (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 6773 (Ohio 2020). · cites it 102דFacts and Procedural Background {¶ 5} A State Highway Patrol trooper stopped Turner as Turner was driving on Old State Route 74, a two-lane, two-way road in Clermont County, for failing to drive within the marked lanes in violation of R.C. 4511.33. As a result of the 2 January…”
State v. Mays, 894 N.E.2d 1204 (Ohio 2008). · cites it 14ד19(A)(1)(a) and crossing marked lanes in violation of R.C. 4511.33. {¶4} The trial court sustained the defendant’s motion to suppress after hearing the evidence and concluding that the trooper did not have a reasonable and articulable suspicion to support the traffic stop.”
State v. Oliver, 2023 Ohio 1550 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 24ד) He also presented as exhibits a printout of the marked lanes statute, R.C. 4511.33, and a copy of the traffic ticket showing Officer Runyan cited Mr.”
State v. Andrews, 2017 Ohio 1383 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 28ד037(J), a marked lanes violation, in violation of R.C. 4511.33, and refusing to submit to a chemical test, in violation of R.”
State v. Shaffer, 2013 Ohio 3581 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 13ד” Specifically, the trial court concluded that “the officer had reasonable and articulable suspicion that the Defendant violated R.C. 4511.33 because the officer observed the Defendant’s tires touch[] the fog line and because it was 3:00 a.”
State v. Batchili, 865 N.E.2d 1282 (Ohio 2007). · cites it 4דAfter observing Batchili commit a marked-lanes violation, see R.C. 4511.33, she activated her overhead emergency lights to signal Batchili to pull over.”
State v. Smith, 2017 Ohio 5845 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 11דFacts and Procedural History {¶ 2} On June 11, 2016, Smith's vehicle was stopped by Sergeant Mark Menendez of the Ohio State Highway Patrol for failing to drive within the marked lanes in violation of R.C. 4511.33. As a result of the traffic stop, drugs were located in Smith's…”
State v. Hodge, 771 N.E.2d 331 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 5דLast, Trooper Hughes performed a breathalyzer test, in which Hodge registered 0.139 percent.”
State v. Marcum, 2013 Ohio 2652 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 13ד19(A)(2) and/or (A)(1)(a) and a marked lanes violation in violation of R.C. 4511.33. Appellee entered a plea of not guilty to the charges.”
State v. Yost, 2018 Ohio 2873 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 13ד19(A)(1)(a), a misdemeanor of the first degree, and a marked lanes violation, in violation of R.C. 4511.33, a minor misdemeanor. Yost appeared, pro se, for arraignment on March 15, 2017, where he entered a plea of not guilty.”
State v. Bahen, 2016 Ohio 7012 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 7ד19(A)(1)(d), a driving in marked lanes violation, pursuant to R.C. 4511.33, and slow speed pursuant to R.”
State v. Franklin, 2012 Ohio 3089 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 11ד19(A)(1)(a) and (A)(1)(d) and a marked lanes violation in violation of R.C. 4511.33. On August 16, 2011, appellant filed a written not guilty plea.”
State v. Turner (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 6773 (Ohio 2020). “Facts and Procedural Background {¶ 5} A State Highway Patrol trooper stopped Turner as Turner was driving on Old State Route 74, a two-lane, two-way road in Clermont County, for failing to drive within the marked lanes in violation of R.C. 4511.33. As a result of the 2 January…”
State v. Oliver, 2023 Ohio 1550 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “) He also presented as exhibits a printout of the marked lanes statute, R.C. 4511.33, and a copy of the traffic ticket showing Officer Runyan cited Mr.”
State v. Mays, 894 N.E.2d 1204 (Ohio 2008). “19(A)(1)(a) and crossing marked lanes in violation of R.C. 4511.33. {¶4} The trial court sustained the defendant’s motion to suppress after hearing the evidence and concluding that the trooper did not have a reasonable and articulable suspicion to support the traffic stop.”
State v. Turner (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 6773 (Ohio 2020). “Facts and Procedural Background {¶ 5} A State Highway Patrol trooper stopped Turner as Turner was driving on Old State Route 74, a two-lane, two-way road in Clermont County, for failing to drive within the marked lanes in violation of R.C. 4511.33. As a result of the 2 January…”
State v. Oliver, 2023 Ohio 1550 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “) He also presented as exhibits a printout of the marked lanes statute, R.C. 4511.33, and a copy of the traffic ticket showing Officer Runyan cited Mr.”
State v. Shaffer, 2013 Ohio 3581 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “” Specifically, the trial court concluded that “the officer had reasonable and articulable suspicion that the Defendant violated R.C. 4511.33 because the officer observed the Defendant’s tires touch[] the fog line and because it was 3:00 a.”
State v. Mays, 894 N.E.2d 1204 (Ohio 2008). “19(A)(1)(a) and crossing marked lanes in violation of R.C. 4511.33. {¶4} The trial court sustained the defendant’s motion to suppress after hearing the evidence and concluding that the trooper did not have a reasonable and articulable suspicion to support the traffic stop.”
State v. Smith, 2017 Ohio 5845 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “Facts and Procedural History {¶ 2} On June 11, 2016, Smith's vehicle was stopped by Sergeant Mark Menendez of the Ohio State Highway Patrol for failing to drive within the marked lanes in violation of R.C. 4511.33. As a result of the traffic stop, drugs were located in Smith's…”
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.