Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4511.33. That law is not violated where, as here, a driver touches—but does not cross—the lane lines. State v. Baker, No. WD-13-074, 2014 WL 2700938, at *3 (Ohio Ct. App. June 13, 2014); State v. Parker, No. OT-12-034, 2013 WL 4041582, at *2 (Ohio Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2013). For that reason, touching the lane lines is insufficient probable cause to believe a marked lane violation occurred.

The Court further finds that at the time of the stop, it was clearly established that “[m]erely touching a lane line is not a violation of Ohio's marked lane statute” and thus cannot provide probable cause to initiate a traffic stop. Id. (citing State v. Baker, No. WD-13-074, 2014 WL 2700938, at *3 (Ohio Ct. App. June 13, 2014); State v. Parker, No. OT-12-034, 2013 WL 4041582, at *2 (Ohio Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2013)). Trooper Franz suggests that Warfield is inapplicable to this case because Warfield is a criminal case addressing a motion to suppress, whereas this is a civil action.

But the consensus among the Ohio intermediate appellate courts is that driving on the line is not a violation of the law. See, e.g., State v. Kneier, No. 2015-P-0006, 2015 WL 5005739, at *3 (Ohio Ct. App. Aug. 24, 2015) (Eleventh District); State v. Baker, No. WD-13-074, 2014 WL 2700938, at *3 (Ohio Ct. App. June 13, 2014) (Sixth District); State v. Marcum, 993 N.E.2d 1289, 1292 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013) (Fifth District). But see State v. Turner, 145 N.E.3d 985, 991 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019) (Twelfth District).