State v. Kvam

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that officer who observes a driver weaving within his lane in an erratic manner is justified in stopping the driver to investigate
• explaining that a remand for findings is sometimes necessary before an appellate court will decide the validity of a district court’s order
• noting that when a district court credits an officer’s testimony that he observed a traffic violation or weaving, then the stop is valid
• stating that, when reviewing a pretrial suppression hearing, a remand for findings is not necessary when there is “no conflict in the evidence and the trial court’s conclusions were consistent with the evidence”
• declining to imply finding of lack of credibility in light of officer’s undisputed testimony
• “[I]f an officer observes a driver weaving within his lane in an erratic manner, ... then the officer is justified in stopping the driver to investigate the cause of the problem.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).