(A) The operator of a motor vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley shall not follow another vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley, and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway.
The driver of any truck, or motor vehicle drawing another vehicle, when traveling upon a roadway outside a business or residence district shall maintain a sufficient space, whenever conditions permit, between such vehicle and another vehicle ahead so an overtaking motor vehicle may enter and occupy such space without danger. This paragraph does not prevent overtaking and passing nor does it apply to any lane specially designated for use by trucks.
Outside a municipal corporation, the driver of any truck, or motor vehicle when drawing another vehicle, while ascending to the crest of a grade beyond which the driver's view of a roadway is obstructed, shall not follow within three hundred feet of another truck, or motor vehicle drawing another vehicle. This paragraph shall not apply to any lane specially designated for use by trucks.
Motor vehicles being driven upon any roadway outside of a business or residence district in a caravan or motorcade, shall maintain a sufficient space between such vehicles so an overtaking vehicle may enter and occupy such space without danger. This paragraph shall not apply to funeral processions.
(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 49
cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1962–2026 · leading case: State v. Holmes, 2019 Ohio 2485 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Holmes, 2019 Ohio 2485 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 13דSpecifically, in her second assignment of error, Holmes argues that the warrantless seizure and search of a prescription pill bottle contained in her purse was unconstitutional because the pill bottle “obviously contained no marijuana,” and it was not immediately apparent that…”
Cleveland v. Jones, 2019 Ohio 1525 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 5ד11 and for following another vehicle too closely in violation of R.C. 4511.34 (“Space between moving vehicles”).”
State v. Kelly, 937 N.E.2d 149 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 5ד” {¶ 17} Deputies Betz and Carpenter observed Kelly following the SUV in front of him too closely, and they therefore had probable cause to initiate a traffic stop under R.”
State v. Hentenaar, 2020 Ohio 4503 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 10דBased on the distance between the two vehicles during their entire course of travel, that is the initial driving along the road and the turning action, the officer initiated a traffic stop of the Hyundai for following too closely in violation of R.C. 4511.34(A). {¶ 4} After the…”
State v. Quaker, 2020 Ohio 2887 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 8דSpecifically, Quaker argues that because Trooper Holden did not have probable cause to stop the vehicle for a violation of R.C. 4511.34, which is commonly referred to as “following too close,” the trial court erred by concluding that the stop of his vehicle was constitutionally…”
State v. Brown, 916 N.E.2d 1138 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3דWhen the vehicle attempted to change lanes, Gazarek initiated the stop. Gazarek testified that the vehicle was traveling one-and-one-half car lengths behind the semi, and he stopped the vehicle for following too closely in violation of R.”
United States v. Roberts, 492 F. Supp. 2d 771 (S.D. Ohio 2005). · cites it 6דand the traffic upon and the condition of the highway.” Herein, Smart had probable cause to believe that Roberts violated § 4511.”
State v. Ward, 2011 Ohio 1261 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 13דBecause Trooper Knowlton believed appellant’s vehicle to be following the other vehicle more closely than was reasonable and prudent given the circumstances, in violation of R.C. 4511.34, he decided to initiate a traffic stop.”
State v. Triplett, 2022 Ohio 1371 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 12ד34(A), which provides: R.C. §4511.34 Space Between Moving Vehicles (A) The operator of a motor vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley shall not follow another vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed…”
State v. Woods, 2018 Ohio 3379 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2דThe driver of any truck, or motor vehicle drawing another vehicle, when traveling upon a roadway outside a business or residence district shall maintain a sufficient space, whenever conditions permit, between such vehicle and another vehicle ahead so an overtaking motor vehicle…”
State v. Jones, 932 N.E.2d 904 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3ד{¶ 11} Appellant suggests that because Sergeant Gazarek did not have the authority to make the traffic stop, it was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 14, Article I, Ohio Constitution.”
State v. Payne, 2012 Ohio 4696 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 5ד{¶16} Specifically, Appellant contends that there are issues as to (1) whether or not Trooper Wilson had probable cause to initiate a traffic stop of the vehicle Payne was driving, and (2) whether or not Trooper Wilson exceeded the scope of the stop when he did not allow Payne…”
State v. Hentenaar, 2020 Ohio 4503 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “Based on the distance between the two vehicles during their entire course of travel, that is the initial driving along the road and the turning action, the officer initiated a traffic stop of the Hyundai for following too closely in violation of R.C. 4511.34(A). {¶ 4} After the…”
State v. Holmes, 2019 Ohio 2485 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “Specifically, in her second assignment of error, Holmes argues that the warrantless seizure and search of a prescription pill bottle contained in her purse was unconstitutional because the pill bottle “obviously contained no marijuana,” and it was not immediately apparent that…”
State v. Triplett, 2022 Ohio 1371 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “34(A), which provides: R.C. §4511.34 Space Between Moving Vehicles (A) The operator of a motor vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley shall not follow another vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed…”
State v. Quaker, 2020 Ohio 2887 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “Specifically, Quaker argues that because Trooper Holden did not have probable cause to stop the vehicle for a violation of R.C. 4511.34, which is commonly referred to as “following too close,” the trial court erred by concluding that the stop of his vehicle was constitutionally…”
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.