California Court: Turn Signal Unnecessary When Nobody is Looking

The Newspaper
by The Newspaper

California drivers do not need to use their turn signals if no other car is nearby according to a ruling handed down Friday by the state’s second-highest court. A three-judge panel of the court of appeal found that La Habra Police Officer Nick Wilson was in the wrong when he stopped Paul David Carmona, Jr. for making a right-hand turn in his Chevy SUV without signaling. Wilson was about 55 feet away traveling in the opposite direction at the time Carmona made his turn. The road was otherwise empty.

Officer Wilson charged Carmona with violating Vehicle Code section 22107, which states a signal must be used when “any other vehicle may be affected by the movement.” The prosecutor argued that Carmona actually violated a separate law, section 22108, which states, “Any signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given continuously during the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning.” The Orange County Superior Court agreed with the prosecutor.

“Because Wilson was approaching from the opposite direction when Carmona’s vehicle made a right-hand turn away from Wilson’s vehicle, and no other vehicles were present, there was no possible violation of section 22107,” Justice Kathleen E. O’Leary wrote for the court. “The attorney general apparently agrees as there is no argument on appeal that Wilson reasonably suspected a violation of section 22107.”

The attorney general argued instead that the next statute, section 22108, was a “stand alone” provision requiring a signal within 100 feet of any turn, regardless of whether other motorists might be affected. The appellate court disagreed after making a detailed analysis of the structure of the vehicle code.

“Sections 22107 and 22108 must be read together so that when a motorist is required by section 22107 to give a turn signal, that signal must be given continuously during the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning,” O’Leary wrote. “Our conclusion is borne out by looking at the entire chapter of which sections 22107 and 22108 are part…. Were section 22108 construed as containing a stand-alone directive that a turn signal be given continuously regardless of the presence of any other vehicle that might be affected, section 22107 would be rendered meaningless.”

As a result of the decision, the court ordered evidence of drugs found in the car as a result of the stop should be suppressed. A copy of the decision is available in a 90k PDF file at the source link below.

California v. Carmona (Court of Appeal, State of California, 5/27/2011)

[Courtesy: Thenewspaper.com]

The Newspaper
The Newspaper

More by The Newspaper

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 47 comments
  • CRConrad CRConrad on Jun 06, 2011

    Two things are wrong with this: First, the headline: "Turn Signal Unnecessary When Nobody is Looking" followed by the first sentence after headline: "...do not need to use their turn signals if no other car is nearby..." So which is it -- "nobody", or "no other car"? To the writer, it seems to be the same thing... Pedestrians don't count at all, eh? Hey, I'm a car nut and everything too... But I do actually move on foot a lot of the time too, and I think this kind of writing, where people as such don't even seem to exist to the writer unless they're in their cars, is taking car-nuttery quite a bit too far. (Taking the headline and the first sentence together, BTW, it seems the writer thinks it's _the car_ that is doing the looking.) Second, as "green on top" said, "What about pedestrians at the cross walks?" It always pisses me off to no end when I hang around waiting for a car to go by before I dare cross the street -- and then it turns off at the nearby crossing and doesn't continue across my path at all. Usually, while I've been waiting, all the other cars approaching along my street have got so close that now I have to wait for all of _them, too_, where otherwise I would have been long gone across the street if I hadn't had to wait for the first one. That b*****d makes me wait double, so to speak... But I bet he never thought about me as having a legitimate interest in knowing what he's going to do, since to him it's enough that _he_ knows he's not going to cross my path. People don't consider that what they are NOT going to do is also sometimes essential information. Which is why I am also firmly in the use-your-indicators-ALL-the-time camp.

    • Jeremyqmartin Jeremyqmartin on Nov 25, 2015

      Wow. I just had to register to respond to this. First, you speak as if you believe no driver, EVER considers the pedestrian (based on your other comment and your example given). I'm sure you don't actually believe that. That would be fallacious. Second, as to your "which is it?" question, meaning: is it ok to NOT signal when there's "nobody" around or when there's "no other car" around...? You KNOW the answer because you can read the law. Just pointing bad writing? Ok maybe it's bad writing, but we all KNOW what the law says, namely that you only need to signal if another vehicle will be affected. So the answer is "no other car" and not "nobody". Again maybe just bad writing. Now I wouldn't simply complain about you complaining about the writer, except that you're using your complaint to again insinuate that nobody cares about the pedestrian (your words: "pedestrians don't count at all, eh?") Third, the writer DOES NOT think, nor does it SEEM the writer thinks that "it's the car that is doing the looking"; you're just nitpicking based on words. Finally; what do pedestrians have to do with this law??? Yes, drivers **should** signal for pedestrians who are "around" and who would be "affected" by a driver's turn, but that it outside the scope of this law. The law only requires a driver to signal to other DRIVERS (in vehicles) that both ARE PRESENT and would be AFFECTED by the 1st driver's turn. If those conditions exist, the driver is required to signal (hint: because the driver is paying attention so as to respond when those comditions are recognized) If your argument is over a pedestrian in a crosswalk, then the rules change entirely. The pedestrian now has right of way and the car is required to yield (notwithstanding your example, in which the driver should, as a courtesy but not required by THIS LAW, signal to the pedestrian, which, by the way, would NOT tell the pedestrian WHICH turn off the driver is about to take, the closer one or the further one which the pedestrian is crossing) And I hope you're not referring to a pedestrian standing on the corner WAITING to ENTER the crosswalk. If the pedestrian is still on the sidewalk, they DO NOT have right of way. A driver is not required to yield to any random pedestrian on the SIDEWALK. The pedestrian must ENTER the crosswalk to gain the righ of way that comes with it.

  • Bryce Chessum Bryce Chessum on Jun 06, 2011

    MNo other vehicles about, What about the patrol car does it not count

  • MaintenanceCosts Poorly packaged, oddly proportioned small CUV with an unrefined hybrid powertrain and a luxury-market price? Who wouldn't want it?
  • MaintenanceCosts Who knows whether it rides or handles acceptably or whether it chews up a set of tires in 5000 miles, but we definitely know it has a "mature stance."Sounds like JUST the kind of previous owner you'd want…
  • 28-Cars-Later Nissan will be very fortunate to not be in the Japanese equivalent of Chapter 11 reorganization over the next 36 months, "getting rolling" is a luxury (also, I see what you did there).
  • MaintenanceCosts RAM! RAM! RAM! ...... the child in the crosswalk that you can't see over the hood of this factory-lifted beast.
  • 3-On-The-Tree Yes all the Older Land Cruiser’s and samurai’s have gone up here as well. I’ve taken both vehicle ps on some pretty rough roads exploring old mine shafts etc. I bought mine right before I deployed back in 08 and got it for $4000 and also bought another that is non running for parts, got a complete engine, drive train. The mice love it unfortunately.
Next