LITTLE ROCK — Arkansas law requires a driver to use a turn signal before making a turn or lane change only if other traffic is present, the state Court of Appeals said Wednesday.
The court addressed the issue in an appeal by Scott Mitchell, who was stopped by a state trooper in Garland County on Jan. 30, 2010, and charged with driving while intoxicated.
At a Nov. 9 hearing, the trooper testified that he stopped Mitchell for making a turn without using a turn signal, then noticed a smell of intoxicants on his breath and administered sobriety tests which Mitchell failed.
Mitchell argued that the trooper had no cause to stop him because there was no other traffic in the immediate vicinity, so a turn signal was not required. He asked Garland County Circuit Judge Marcia Hearnsberger to suppress the evidence from the traffic stop.
The judge denied the motion, finding that a turn signal is required for any turn, regardless of the presence of other vehicles.
Independent reporting for Pine Bluff & Jefferson County since 1879.
Mitchell pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated, third offense, on the condition that he be allowed to appeal the motion to suppress. He was sentenced to one year in jail with 215 days suspended.
A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals Wednesday upheld Hearnsberger’s denial of the motion to suppress, but it said the judge had misinterpreted the law regarding turn signals.
Arkansas Code 27-51-403(a) states in part that a driver shall not turn a vehicle from a direct course until the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after giving an appropriate signal “in the manner provided in subsection (b) of this section in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement.”
Subsection (b) states that a turn signal must be given continuously during at least the last 100 feet the vehicle travels before turning or changing lanes.
The Court of Appeals said in its opinion Wednesday that the circuit judge “apparently believed that subsection (b) operated independently to require a signal for every lane change,” but it does not.
“Other traffic must be present before the obligation to signal arises, with subsection (b) prescribing the manner of signaling if signaling is required,” Judge Raymond Abramson wrote in the opinion.
The appeals court rejected Mitchell’s appeal, however, noting that at least one other vehicle was in the vicinity at the time — the trooper’s.