 |
| Does anyone else see the beginnings of a creative argument about a busted turn signal here? |
By Andrew Delaney
One might think that if one is in a turn-only lane, a turn signal is redundant and unnecessary. Surely, it’s not a basis for a traffic stop.
According to SCOV, one would be wrong.
Just days under two years ago and just after midnight, Mr. Cook was driving in St. Albans. He came to the end of Hoyt Street, where it merges in a “T” with Main Street. One can go left. One can go right. If one attempts to drive straight ahead, one is likely to drive onto a lawn, perhaps into a building, and one will not have a very good argument for why one shouldn’t have been pulled over. A picture of Mr. Cook’s approach follows the break.
Mr. Cook was in the right-turn-only lane. He stopped at the stop sign and made his turn. There was a police officer behind him who noticed that Mr. Cook had not used his turn signal. Blue lights and a ride to the police station ensued, with Mr. Cook being charged with DUI.
So, Mr. Cook filed a motion to dismiss, essentially arguing that if one is in a turn-only lane, and one makes the turn indicated by the turn-only lane, then that doesn’t provide a police officer with the requisite “reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing” to hit the whoop-whoop and the party-is-over lights.
The trial court basically said, “Nope. You still need a turn signal.” So, Mr. Cook entered a conditional plea.
He now appeals.
SCOV notes that the facts are undisputed and that the only challenge is to the trial court’s legal conclusions. That means that SCOV can go wherever it wants to with the case.
This statute and this statute require turns be signaled (and tell you how to do hand signals for what it’s worth—how many of you remember that from your driving test?). SCOV reasons that the plain language of the statute requires a signal before a turn and that there ain’t any exceptions for turn-only lanes.
SCOV notes that the 90-degree turn here fits the definition of a “change in direction” in the statute. SCOV also notes that it has previously interpreted the signal-100-feet-before-the-turn provision in the statute to apply regardless of traffic conditions. Finally, SCOV notes that it’s held some “turns”—those that follow the natural arc of the road—aren’t really turns under the statute.
All this, says SCOV, is consistent with its ruling here. Mr. Cook changed direction. He did not signal for 100 feet before the turn. And he was not following the “natural arc” of the road. SCOV looks to some decisions from other states with similar results and distinguishes from states with required-for-traffic-safety-only turn statutes.
And that’s the long and short of it. The Legislature could’ve carved out some exceptions if it wanted to. It didn’t.
SCOV holds that the motion to dismiss was properly denied.
Comments
Post a Comment