Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.370 (2026)

Failure to drive within lane; exception; penalty

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      811.370 Failure to drive within lane; exception; penalty. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a person commits the offense of failure to drive within a lane if the person is operating a vehicle upon a roadway that is divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic and the driver does not:

      (a) Operate the vehicle as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane; and

      (b) Refrain from moving from that lane until the driver has first made certain that the movement can be made with safety.

      (2) A person who operates a commercial motor vehicle within a multilane roundabout that is divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic may operate the commercial motor vehicle in more than one lane when it is not practicable to remain entirely within one lane.

      (3) The offense described in this section, failure to drive within a lane, is a Class B traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §630; 2011 c.85 §2]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: State v. Little, 533 P.3d 1107 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Little, 533 P.3d 1107 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 23× “In particular, he contends that a single, minor deviation over the fog line is not enough to support a citation for failing to drive within a lane, ORS 811.370. Held: The Court of Appeals concluded that the intent of the legislature is clear that a momentary and minor lane…”
State v. McBroom, 39 P.3d 226 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 14× “After speaking with defendant, Zbinden also developed probable cause to believe that defendant was driving under the influence of intoxicants and arrested him for that crime. Before trial on the DUII charge, defendant moved to suppress evidence that Zbinden had obtained as a…”
State v. Koteen, 344 Or. App. 527 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 21× “After being charged with driving under the influ- ence of intoxicants, defendant moved to suppress the evi- dence that the officer obtained after stopping defendant’s car, arguing that the officer did not have probable cause to believe that defendant failed to drive within a…”
State v. VANLOM, 222 P.3d 49 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 12× “He asserted that he had probable cause to stop defendant for failure to drive within his lane in violation of ORS 811.370 because defendant drove onto the lines demarcating his lane of travel four times.”
State v. Derby, 455 P.3d 1009 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 6× “The trial court denied the motion to suppress on the basis that the officer had probable cause to stop defendant for failure to maintain a lane, ORS 811.370. On appeal, the state concedes that, because the lane in which defendant was traveling was not clearly marked, the trial…”
State v. Isley, 48 P.3d 179 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 5× “ORS 811.370. 1 Before Aydelotte activated his lights or siren, defendant pulled over to the side of the road unprompted.”
State v. Wentworth, 284 P.3d 1250 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 11× “Defendant assigns as error the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop, asserting that the officer lacked probable cause to stop him for failure to drive within a lane, ORS 811.370 (2007). 1 Defendant makes two arguments about…”
State of Tennessee v. Linzey Danielle Smith, 484 S.W.3d 393 (Tenn. 2016). ““stray” outside his lane of travel even if the straying is accomplished safely (citing Or.Rev.Stat. § 811.370(1))). . We recognize that other courts, in effect, have combined the two contingencies of their jurisdiction’s version of Section 123(1) and concluded that a violation…”
Frasier v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Branch, 17 P.3d 582 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 9× “ORS 811.370. He raises multiple assignments of error.”
State v. Shupe, 368 P.3d 41 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “In that motion, defendant argued that the police officer who stopped him had neither reasonable suspicion that defendant was committing the crime of driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.”
State v. Ordner, 287 P.3d 1256 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “” In denying defendant’s motion to suppress, the trial court opined that the officer had probable cause to believe that defendant had violated ORS 811.370 (failure to drive within a lane), and ORS 811.”
State v. Kolb, 283 P.3d 423 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “ORS 811.370(l)(a). Ruble approached the car and asked for both the driver’s license and registration and proof of insurance and for defendant’s driver’s license.”
Show all 31 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.370(1) — 15 cases
State of Tennessee v. Linzey Danielle Smith, 484 S.W.3d 393 (Tenn. 2016). ““stray” outside his lane of travel even if the straying is accomplished safely (citing Or.Rev.Stat. § 811.370(1))). . We recognize that other courts, in effect, have combined the two contingencies of their jurisdiction’s version of Section 123(1) and concluded that a violation…”
Frasier v. Driver & Motor Veh. Servs. Branch, 17 P.3d 582 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “ORS 811.370. He raises multiple assignments of error.”
State v. Little, 533 P.3d 1107 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “In particular, he contends that a single, minor deviation over the fog line is not enough to support a citation for failing to drive within a lane, ORS 811.370. Held: The Court of Appeals concluded that the intent of the legislature is clear that a momentary and minor lane…”
State v. Koteen, 344 Or. App. 527 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “After being charged with driving under the influ- ence of intoxicants, defendant moved to suppress the evi- dence that the officer obtained after stopping defendant’s car, arguing that the officer did not have probable cause to believe that defendant failed to drive within a…”
State v. Derby, 455 P.3d 1009 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “The trial court denied the motion to suppress on the basis that the officer had probable cause to stop defendant for failure to maintain a lane, ORS 811.370. On appeal, the state concedes that, because the lane in which defendant was traveling was not clearly marked, the trial…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.370(1)(a) — 8 cases
State v. Little, 533 P.3d 1107 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “In particular, he contends that a single, minor deviation over the fog line is not enough to support a citation for failing to drive within a lane, ORS 811.370. Held: The Court of Appeals concluded that the intent of the legislature is clear that a momentary and minor lane…”
State v. McBroom, 39 P.3d 226 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “After speaking with defendant, Zbinden also developed probable cause to believe that defendant was driving under the influence of intoxicants and arrested him for that crime. Before trial on the DUII charge, defendant moved to suppress evidence that Zbinden had obtained as a…”
State v. Koteen, 344 Or. App. 527 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “After being charged with driving under the influ- ence of intoxicants, defendant moved to suppress the evi- dence that the officer obtained after stopping defendant’s car, arguing that the officer did not have probable cause to believe that defendant failed to drive within a…”
State v. Harmon, 344 Or. App. 466 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Harmon, 344 Or. App. 466 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.370(1)(b) — 2 cases
State v. McBroom, 39 P.3d 226 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “After speaking with defendant, Zbinden also developed probable cause to believe that defendant was driving under the influence of intoxicants and arrested him for that crime. Before trial on the DUII charge, defendant moved to suppress evidence that Zbinden had obtained as a…”
State v. Derby, 455 P.3d 1009 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “The trial court denied the motion to suppress on the basis that the officer had probable cause to stop defendant for failure to maintain a lane, ORS 811.370. On appeal, the state concedes that, because the lane in which defendant was traveling was not clearly marked, the trial…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.370(l)(a) — 1 case
State v. Kolb, 283 P.3d 423 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “ORS 811.370(l)(a). Ruble approached the car and asked for both the driver’s license and registration and proof of insurance and for defendant’s driver’s license.”
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.