Admit it, you don't always turn on your blinker when you change lanes. Well you should. It is not only a courtesy to your fellow drivers, but according to a recent appellate decision, failing to signal lane changes gives the police adequate justification to pull you over and find all those not so legal things you are carrying around.
The case was People v Rice, 2007 NY Slip Op 06503 decided by the First Department on August 23. In that case, two New York City police officers were on patrol when they observed a Mazda move from the left lane to the right lane without signaling. The police ran the vehicle's license plate number, and learned it was a rental car, which had not been reported stolen. They then witnessed the Mazda move from the right lane back into the left lane, again without signaling. At that point the police officers pulled the vehicle over.
The officers requested the driver to produce his license and the vehicle's registration. The driver, defendant Wayne Rice, presented a valid New York State driver's license in his name. Defendant then fumbled around in the glove compartment before handing the officer a rental agreement in the name of Sylena Cole. The officer remarked to defendant that the agreement was in a woman's name, prompting defendant to search the glove compartment a second time, resulting in the production of another rental agreement in defendant's name. The officer testified that defendant was acting nervous and offered no explanation for the duplicate agreements.
The officer, upon examining the agreements, noted that most of the information on them, except the drivers' names, was identical. The officer further observed that the rental agreement indicated that the car had been due back to the rental company two days prior to the stop. The officer testified that although the computer check revealed the vehicle was not stolen, such information was not conclusive since he had been involved in many cases where a vehicle was stolen from a rental company lot and the theft was not discovered and reported for one or two weeks. The officer accordingly believed there something was wrong with the agreements. The defendant offered no explanation for the different agreements. The officer then asked defendant what he was doing in the area, to which he responded that he had come there to get a haircut, although he did not know the name or location of the place where he intended to get a haircut, or how long he had been in the area. The officer subsequently inquired if defendant had any weapons on him and, after defendant responded in the negative, the officer asked him to step out of the vehicle. As defendant complied, the officer noticed a knife clipped and hanging from defendant's left pants pocket. The officer seized the knife.
The police then proceeded to frisk defendant to ensure that he did not have another weapon, and discovered an abnormal, unnatural bulge in defendant's groin area. The officer asked defendant if he had anything on him, to which defendant replied in the negative. The officer testified that he knew from his training, as well as his experience, that rental cars are often used to transport narcotics and that the contraband is often transported in the groin area as if it were part of the human anatomy. Accordingly, the officers arrested defendant and brought him to the precinct. Once at the precinct, the officer recovered $1,849 from defendant's person and, after again feeling the unnatural bulge in defendant's groin area, took defendant to a private room, and directed him to remove his pants and underwear. After defendant complied, the police recovered a clear plastic package the size of a tennis ball containing cocaine, which had been wrapped inside defendant's underwear.
The defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized on the grounds that the automobile stop violated his Fourth Amendment and New York State constitutional right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures thereby compelling suppression of the fruits of that unlawful stop. The hearing court granted the motion finding that while the Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) required the use of directional signals on all turns, it did not require signaling when a lane change can be made in complete safety without such a signal.
The First Department disagreed and reversed. The Court relied on the language of VTL § 1163 which provides:
(a) No person shall turn a vehicle at an intersection unless the vehicle is in proper position upon the roadway as required in section eleven hundred sixty, or turn a vehicle to enter a private road or driveway, or otherwise turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety. No person shall so turn any vehicle without giving an appropriate signal in the manner hereinafter provided (emphasis added).
(d) The signals provided for in section eleven hundred sixty-four shall be used to indicate an intention to turn, change lanes, or start from a parked position and not be flashed on one side only on a parked or disabled vehicle, or flashed as a courtesy or do pass' signal to operators of other vehicles approaching from the rear (emphasis added).
Thus, based on the emphasized language above, the Court found that the statute unequivocally required the use of a signal in all instances when a lane change is made. The Court found further support in a review of the legislative intent indicating that VTL § 1163 was amended to impose an absolute duty to use signals when making any movement of a vehicle.
So unless you want to be pulled over, use those directional signals.
People v. Jerome Krantz also address amd unsafe lane change. It involves misintrepretation of the law. If a ooficer charges you with a moving traffic offense all the elements must be proven. Is the fruit of poisonous tree applicable for issuance of a violation of failure to maintain lane when so many statute involves failure to maintain lane?. 1120(a), 1126(a) 1163, Is it me or is that statute open to interpretation by officer.
Posted by: Guy | November 23, 2008 at 06:55 AM
They better signal every time they do! I mean- doesn't every one must? I sure do! There is a certain language on the road and any one who wants to drive safely better learn it- you need to let the people around you know your intentions and not just change lanes unpredictably!!!
Posted by: truck rental | December 31, 2009 at 11:42 AM