The South Dakota Supreme Court has overturned a drunken driving conviction that was predicated on a driver’s failure to use his turn signal 100 feet before reaching a stop sign.
In a 5-0 decision, the high court ruled that the Aberdeen police officer’s decision to initiate the stop was “objectively unreasonable” and based on an “incomplete” understanding of the law.
State law does not require the use of a turn signal in all circumstances, the court pointed out.
Instead, it requires that a driver must use a “plainly visible” signal “whenever the operation of any other vehicle may be affected” by a turn.
The driver did use his right turn signal in the Aberdeen case, but only after he’d come to a complete stop at a stop sign. The officer was about a block behind him, pulled him over for failing to signal sooner and arrested him for driving under the influence.
The officer was relying on a separate South Dakota law that says, “when required,” a turn signal must be used by a driver at least 100 feet before making a turn.
The driver, however, cited the law noting that signals are only required when a turn might affect another vehicle. He claimed the officer had no valid reason to make the traffic stop, because there were no people or other vehicles around. A judge rejected that argument during a court trial, where the driver was convicted of DUI.
The high court sided with the driver. There was no evidence the driver was traveling “in a residential area with pedestrians or multiple vehicles nearby,” the opinion says. The officer’s vehicle, a block behind the driver, it says, couldn’t have been affected by the driver’s right-hand turn.
The officer testified at the trial court level that he was unfamiliar with state law on when turn signals are required, so the justices wrote that his decision to pull the driver over was “objectively unreasonable.”
“There was no reasonable suspicion justifying the stop,” the court ruled.
You can read the full article at South Dakota Searchlight.