State v. Dorendorf

37 Citing cases

  1. Kappel v. Department of Transportation

    1999 N.D. 213 (N.D. 1999)   Cited 17 times
    In Kappel v. Director, DOT, 602 N.W.2d 718 (N.D. 1999), stopping at a stop sign for ten seconds at 1 a.m., then weaving in the lane of traffic was a sufficient basis to stop.

    [¶ 13] In a prior decision, we held that a vehicle weaving within its own lane may be enough to justify the stop of that vehicle. State v. Dorendorf, 359 N.W.2d 115, 117 (N.D. 1984). We have also held that weaving in one's own lane combined with a minor infraction or other suspicious activity may justify the stop of a vehicle.

  2. In re T.J.K

    1999 N.D. 152 (N.D. 1999)   Cited 13 times

    Driving or weaving upon the wrong half of the roadway is a traffic violation under N.D.C.C. § 39-10-08(1). See Zimmerman, at 481-82 (deciding a reasoning mind could have concluded Zimmerman committed a traffic violation by crossing the center line out of her lane of traffic); State v. VandeHoven, 388 N.W.2d 857, 859 (N.D. 1986) (concluding weaving provided sufficient basis to create an articulable and reasonable suspicion VandeHoven was violating the law); State v. Dorendorf, 359 N.W.2d 115, 116-17 (N.D. 1984) (concluding the officers had the requisite reasonable suspicion to stop Dorendorf after observing his vehicle weaving within its own lane of traffic). But see Salter, 505 N.W.2d at 113-14 (deciding an officer's observation of "slight" or "minimum" weaving was insufficient to serve as a valid basis for stopping Salter's vehicle).

  3. State v. VandeHoven

    388 N.W.2d 857 (N.D. 1986)   Cited 36 times
    Concluding weaving provided sufficient basis to create an articulable and reasonable suspicion VandeHoven was violating the law

    "[t]he law governing investigative stops of automobiles is clear: an officer must have an articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is violating the law in order to legally stop a vehicle. State v. Indvick, 382 N.W.2d 623 (N.D. 1986); State v. Dorendorf, 359 N.W.2d 115 (N.D. 1984)." [Emphasis added.]

  4. Neset v. North Dakota State Highway Commissioner

    388 N.W.2d 860 (N.D. 1986)   Cited 8 times
    In Neset, we interpreted a similar statute, N.D.C.C. § 39–20–01, which specified that drivers give implied consent to a chemical test of the blood, breath, saliva, or urine upon being arrested and informed that they are being charged with driving or being in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of liquor or drugs. Neset, 388 N.W.2d at 863.

    Deputy McTavish testified that Neset's vehicle weaved from side to side in its own lane of travel and that Neset failed to signal for a right-hand turn. We have previously held, in State v. Dorendorf, 359 N.W.2d 115 (N.D. 1984), that an officer's observation of a vehicle weaving within its own lane of travel justified a stop of the vehicle to determine the cause of the weaving. In the instant case, Deputy McTavish also observed that a right turn was executed without using a directional signal.

  5. State v. Nguyen

    No. 3-770 / 13-0045 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2013)

    The Otto court cited a case from North Dakota that found reasonable suspicion existed to justify stopping a vehicle after the officers observed the driver's "smooth, continuous weave within his own lane of traffic" that the officer characterized as "erratic," as compared to other driving observed on the night in question. See State v. Dorendorf, 359 N.W.2d 115, 117 (N.D. 1984). The weaving in this case was not "sharp, like a jerk of the driver" nor was there veering at "sharp angle[s]" to the left and right like that observed in Otto, 566 N.W.2d at 511.

  6. State v. Tompkins

    507 N.W.2d 736 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 44 times
    Holding there was reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop where an officer followed the defendant's vehicle for approximately one mile and observed the car "weave from the center line to the right side boundary several times"

    hicle for investigation. Ebona v. Alaska, 577 P.2d 698, 699 (Alaska 1978) (holding observations of continual weaving of vehicle within its lane, and of driver walking in unsteady manner earlier, justified stop); State v. Superior Court, 149 Ariz. 269, 274, 718 P.2d 171, 175 (1986) (holding vehicle weaving within its lane was a specific and articulable fact justifying investigative stop); State v. Field, 252 Kan. 657, 663-64, 847 P.2d 1280, 1285 (1993) (holding trial court erred in dismissing complaint against driver; vehicle weaving within its lane over several blocks is sufficient to constitute reasonable suspicion); State v. Ellanson, 293 Minn. 490, 490-91, 198 N.W.2d 136, 137 (1972) (holding vehicle weaving within its lane justified stop to investigate cause); State v. Thomte, 226 Neb. 659, 663, 413 N.W.2d 916, 919 (1987) (holding vehicle weaving in its lane two times provided articulable basis or reasonable suspicion for stopping a vehicle for investigation of driver's condition); State v. Dorendorf, 359 N.W.2d 115, 116-17 (N.D. 1984) (holding vehicle weaving within its lane for one-eighth to one-quarter of a mile justified investigatory stop; officer described driving as erratic); People v. Perez, 175 Cal.App.3d Supp. 8, 11, 221 Cal.Rptr. 776, 778 (Cal. Super. 1985) (holding pronounced weaving of vehicle within its lane for a substantial distance provides officer with reasonable cause to stop vehicle on suspicion of driving under influence); Brown v. State, 595 So.2d 270, 270 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1992) (holding continual weaving of vehicle within its lane and slowing to 45 m.p.h. and then accelerating to 55 m.p.h. several times justified stop; officer described driving as erratic); People v. Loucks, 135 Ill. App.3d 530, 533, 90 Ill.Dec. 286, 287, 481 N.E.2d 1086, 1087 (1985) (holding vehicle weaving within its lane continuously for two blocks provided sufficient basis for investigatory stop); State v. Huckin, 847 S.W.2d 951, 955 (Mo.Ct.App. 1993) (holding vehicle drifting to center line and back toward shoulder four

  7. State v. Suelzle

    2021 N.D. 194 (N.D. 2021)   Cited 3 times

    In State v. Dorendorf, we held the officers had the requisite reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle after observing the vehicle weaving within its own lane of traffic. 359 N.W.2d 115, 116-17 (N.D. 1984). By contrast, "slight" or "minimum" weaving does not justify a traffic stop.

  8. State v. James

    2016 N.D. 68 (N.D. 2016)   Cited 5 times

    See Zimmerman, at 481–82 (deciding a reasoning mind could have concluded Zimmerman committed a traffic violation by crossing the center line out of her lane of traffic); State v. VandeHoven, 388 N.W.2d 857, 859 (N.D.1986) (concluding weaving provided sufficient basis to create an articulable and reasonable suspicion VandeHoven was violating the law); State v. Dorendorf, 359 N.W.2d 115, 116–17 (N.D.1984) (concluding the officers had the requisite reasonable suspicion to stop Dorendorf after observing his vehicle weaving within its own lane of traffic). But see Salter, 505 N.W.2d at 113–14 (deciding an officer's observation of ‘slight’ or ‘minimum’ weaving was insufficient to serve as a valid basis for stopping Salter's vehicle).”

  9. Pesanti v. N. Dakota Dep't of Transp.

    2013 N.D. 210 (N.D. 2013)   Cited 12 times

    [¶ 10] This Court held that a smooth, continuous weaving within a lane may be enough to justify an investigative stop. State v. Dorendorf, 359 N.W.2d 115, 116–17 (N.D.1984). Courts in other jurisdictions have held that continuous weaving within a lane may or will justify a stop. See State v. Ellanson, 293 Minn. 490, 198 N.W.2d 136 (1972); State v. Field, 252 Kan. 657, 847 P.2d 1280 (1993).

  10. State v. Mohl

    2010 N.D. 120 (N.D. 2010)   Cited 9 times

    By contrast, in State v. Dorendorf, the Court affirmed a judgment of driving under the influence. 359 N.W.2d 115 (N.D. 1984). Dorendorf had been driving at 1:00 a.m., and law enforcement noticed the vehicle was weaving within its lane of traffic. Id. The Court determined the officers had seven and nine years of law enforcement training, had made investigatory stops based on circumstances similar to the situation at hand, and had described the driving as erratic.