Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Thursday March 28, 2024
Home Forums Images WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC General > News & Rumors > Non-Subaru News & Rumors

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.







* As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. 
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads. 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-02-2011, 01:45 PM   #1
AVANTI R5
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 73805
Join Date: Nov 2004
Vehicle:
24 TypeS ZO6
White

Default California Court: Turn Signal Unnecessary When Nobody is Looking





Quote:
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.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/201...dy-is-looking/
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
AVANTI R5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Old 06-02-2011, 01:55 PM   #2
samagon
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 26859
Join Date: Oct 2002
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: undisputed COMBAT! champion
Vehicle:
of TXIC
I also like (oYo)!!!!

Default

age old debate of whether a tree falling in the woods makes a sound or not.

obviously, if someone gets a citation, there was another car around, i.e., the one with the cop in it.

interesting use of words, too, at the end it says drugs were 'found' I'm sure they meant 'seen' cause I don't understand how you get probable cause from not using a turn signal, which is basically what is being said here?

it makes no sense.
samagon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2011, 02:12 PM   #3
E. Nick
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 8489
Join Date: Jul 2001
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: Atherton, CA
Vehicle:
2005 Carrera GT
Guards

Default

Judge was a woman! This won't end well.
E. Nick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2011, 02:12 PM   #4
SCRAPPYDO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 873
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: www.testdrivemylife.com
Vehicle:
2020 JEEP / RAM
Datsun 71 240Z & 68 2000

Default

making sense and Kalifornia have nothing in common, dude.

You know this!
SCRAPPYDO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2011, 02:29 PM   #5
LoveMyCoupe
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 257123
Join Date: Sep 2010
Default

I suspect the underlying story is that the officer intended to stop the vehicle and failure to use a turn signal gave him the excuse to do what he was going to do anyway, which was stop the car and search somebody's vehicle for drugs.
My younger brother used to be an officer and he told me flat out that if he wants to stop a car he WILL come up with some excuse.
LoveMyCoupe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2011, 02:37 PM   #6
FLZ_Boy
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 186303
Join Date: Aug 2008
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: So. Cal
Vehicle:
2011 Legacy 2.5i 6MT
SPW

Default

Cool, I dont have to signal if noone is around. I was starting think Kalifornia would require it for all situations.
FLZ_Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2011, 02:44 PM   #7
stewb
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 154753
Join Date: Jul 2007
Vehicle:
2008 STI
DGM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LoveMyCoupe View Post
I suspect the underlying story is that the officer intended to stop the vehicle and failure to use a turn signal gave him the excuse to do what he was going to do anyway, which was stop the car and search somebody's vehicle for drugs.
My younger brother used to be an officer and he told me flat out that if he wants to stop a car he WILL come up with some excuse.
Odd ruling from the bench. Seems like one of those cases in which the court would have definitely sided with law enforcement.

When in a car you are fair game for LEOs. (In before that HipToBeATeabagger dude shows up to rant about the 4th Amendment. )
stewb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2011, 02:54 PM   #8
WhiteKnightSTi
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 169250
Join Date: Jan 2008
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Vehicle:
2001 Schweizer 300CB
(wirlybird)

Default

When I come to power people who don't use their turn signals will be executed and their decaying corpses will be hung from streetsigns as a warning to others.

calisawbunny.gif
WhiteKnightSTi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2011, 03:14 PM   #9
teiva-boy
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 22825
Join Date: Aug 2002
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Seattle, WA
Default

Seems like a straight forward ruling to me.

One statute says to signal when other cars are present, the other says to all the time within the last 100 feet. Thus they contradict. Kalifornia Supreme Court is spot on.
teiva-boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2011, 06:56 PM   #10
Skylab
n00b Moderator
Moderator
 
Member#: 4263
Join Date: Feb 2001
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Encinitas
Lightbulb Conspiracy Theory

Sounds more like, the driver was being staked out by undercover officers.
Undercover dudes tell the Black and White to find a reason to pull the car over. Car probably had both plates, non-tinted front windows, and current registration.

Defendant made a turn without signalling. Light 'em up! Officer gets driver to consent to vehicle search, and there's the drugs they were looking for.

Subject goes to court, gets decent lawyer who finds a loophole in the driving code, and tries to get drug lord off on a technicality.

I'm just guessing this as a probable scenario. My friend is a cop and pulled a car over that was being tailed by plain-clothes officers. After following the car (which ended up having boat loads of cash onboard) for awhile, he pulled the driver over for having a pendant dangling off the car's rearview mirror.

Cause for being pulled over?... Obstruction of view.

He did tell me though that you can be pulled over if your car has a cracked bumper.


/rant
Skylab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2011, 11:59 PM   #11
Dex
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 163775
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Somewhere spilling coffee
Vehicle:
2023 BRZ
CWP

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO View Post
making sense and most states in the US have nothing in common, dude.

You know this!

Fixored.

Pretty strong words for somebody from Texas *cough* google Rick Perry *cough*

CA isn't the first state to this either, there is another state that this has already come up in. I habitually use my blinker regardless. Just good habit.



Dumb judge, I bet she thinks the cell phone law is stupid.
Dex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2011, 02:03 AM   #12
2.5RSMatt
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 30497
Join Date: Nov 2002
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: San Diego, CA
Vehicle:
00 RSTi
FUK HDR

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dex View Post
Dumb judge, I bet she thinks the cell phone law is stupid.
You can use your cell phone as long as no one else is on the road around you.
2.5RSMatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2011, 08:23 PM   #13
aren040
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 74215
Join Date: Nov 2004
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: S. California
Vehicle:
2007 987
Silver-ish

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dex View Post
Fixored.

Pretty strong words for somebody from Texas *cough* google Rick Perry *cough*

CA isn't the first state to this either, there is another state that this has already come up in. I habitually use my blinker regardless. Just good habit.



Dumb judge, I bet she thinks the cell phone law is stupid.
Sorry, but as it stands, I think the cell phone law is stupid. The act of having a conversation is much more inhibiting than having one hand off the wheel holding a cell phone. In fact I would state, on my own beliefs with no facts to back them up with, that the conversation is the primary reason people do something wrong while driving.

Sorry to go off topic. I use signals for everything. It is a good practice and takes absolutely minimal effort. I don't understand why anyone would be opposed to using them. That is why I believe that this is just a loophole that was exploited to get this guy off for more serious charges. It has nothing to do with the actual use of turn signals.
aren040 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2011, 03:48 PM   #14
Mike Wevrick
RIP 1/19/64 - 7/23/11
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 24654
Join Date: Sep 2002
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: saraseager.com
Vehicle:
1957 Taggart Comet
atlasshruggedpart1.com

Default


Quote:
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."
I don't see why these can't operate separately. I read this as saying signals must always be used within 100 ft of turning (22108), but sometimes for longer than that if another vehicle might be affected (22107)
Mike Wevrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2011, 04:41 PM   #15
White out
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 46277
Join Date: Oct 2003
Vehicle:
H1 Viper
LP640 FGT

Default

.....

Last edited by White out; 05-09-2022 at 02:30 PM.
White out is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2011, 04:49 PM   #16
matt30
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 97330
Join Date: Sep 2005
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: California/New York
Vehicle:
2003 WRX

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Wevrick View Post



I don't see why these can't operate separately. I read this as saying signals must always be used within 100 ft of turning (22108), but sometimes for longer than that if another vehicle might be affected (22107)


But how do you determine if another vehicle will be affected if not by distance from the turn? If a car has been following behind me for the last 5 miles am I supposed to indicate 5 miles prior to the turn?
matt30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2011, 09:36 PM   #17
Mike Wevrick
RIP 1/19/64 - 7/23/11
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 24654
Join Date: Sep 2002
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: saraseager.com
Vehicle:
1957 Taggart Comet
atlasshruggedpart1.com

Default

There are lots of cases where more than 100 yards is called for; pretty much all the time in medium to heavy traffic at highway speeds for example.
Mike Wevrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Headlights flicker when turn signal is applied Aspenbullet Electrical & Lighting 6 07-16-2007 03:46 AM
Is it Illegal to change front turn signal light to blue in California? Skyline-R34 Interior & Exterior Modification 16 01-13-2006 02:22 PM
needle on gauge moves when turn signal is on Rickyh Electrical & Lighting 2 11-23-2003 11:22 PM
California Vehicle Code Section 24953: Turn Signal Lamps hman Bay Area Impreza Club Forum -- BAIC 9 09-21-2001 04:55 PM

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2024 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2019, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission
Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.