DORSCH v. STATE (2002)

Dennis Dorsch appeals his conviction for DUI, challenging the legality of the traffic stop.   Because the record reveals that the stop was permissible, we affirm.

The officer who stopped Dorsch testified at trial that at about 11:50 p.m. on September 18, 1998, the car that Dorsch was driving caught his attention when it “made a very abrupt lane change.”   For about a mile, the officer paced Dorsch's car, i.e., compared Dorsch's speed to his own.¹  During that time, the officer observed Dorsch exceed the speed limit and stopped him.

 An officer may make a brief investigatory stop if such stop is “justified by specific, articulable facts sufficient to give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct.” ²  A stop of a vehicle is authorized if the officer observed a traffic offense.³  Because the officer saw Dorsch violate a traffic law, the resulting traffic stop was permissible.⁴

Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   See Patel v. State, 240 Ga.App. 178, 179, 522 S.E.2d 760 (1999) (pacing is an established method of determining vehicle speed);  Staley v. State, 224 Ga.App. 806(1), 482 S.E.2d 459 (1997);  Turner v. State, 236 Ga.App. 592, 594(1), 512 S.E.2d 699 (1999).

2.   Chiasson v. State, 250 Ga.App. 63, 64(1), 549 S.E.2d 503 (2001);  see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).

3.   See Cotton v. State, 237 Ga.App. 18, 513 S.E.2d 763 (1999);  Brantley v. State, 226 Ga.App. 872, 873(1), 487 S.E.2d 412 (1997);  Freeland v. State, 223 Ga.App. 326, 327(1), 477 S.E.2d 633 (1996).

4.   Cotton, supra;  Brantley, supra;  Freeland, supra.

PHIPPS, Judge.

ANDREWS, P.J., and MIKELL, J., concur.