Turning Movements While Failing to Signal
When an police officer’s justification for an illegal traffic stop is based on a reasonably objective mistake of law or fact, the resulting stop may be upheld despite the Fourth Amendment violation. In order for V.C. § 22108’s signaling requirement to be effective, it must also be shown that there was another vehicle that might have been affected, as required by V.C. § 22107. It is not reasonable for a law enforcement officer to believe that V.C. § 22107’s “other affected vehicle” requirement is met merely because one vehicle is behind a turning vehicle, at least in the absence of a possibility that the rear vehicle could move into the path of the turning vehicle.
Rookie Vallejo Police Officer Laura Bellamy (with a whole one month on the police force), riding with her field training officer (“FTO”), observed defendant Andrew Holiman in his vehicle stopped at a stop sign. Officer Bellamy was stopped at the same four-way stop sign intersection, on a cross street, and to defendant’s left. Defendant made a left hand turn in front of Officer Bellamy, looking at her as he passed her patrol car, and then “quickly looked away as if to want to hide his face.” Officer Bellamy found this “furtive glance” to be “curious.” So she made a U-turn and followed defendant’s vehicle for the next couple of blocks until they came to a three-way stop sign intersection. With Officer Bellamy directly behind him, defendant made a full stop at the stop sign with his vehicle in a position where the roadside curb was immediately to his right, leaving no room for another car to pass him on his right-hand side. He then turned on his right-hand blinker “just prior” to making a right turn. Officer Bellamy followed defendant for another mile (about “four more minutes”) before executing a traffic stop. Her stated reason for the stop was because defendant failed to signal his right-hand turn for a full 100 feet before making the turn, pursuant to Veh. Code § 22108. Upon contacting defendant, it was quickly determined that he was on parole (for armed robbery) and therefore subject to search and seizure conditions. A Fourth waiver search of his car resulted in the recovery of a loaded semiautomatic handgun, methamphetamine, and marijuana. Charged in state court with being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, plus other charges, and with a prior strike conviction, defendant’s motion to suppress everything recovered as a result of the search of his car was denied. Defendant was sentenced to seven years and four months in prison after pleading no contest in a negotiated plea. He subsequently appealed.
