ILNews

7th Circuit examines traffic 'turn' definition

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

While Indiana statute doesn’t specifically define the word “turning” in the context of traffic law, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has held the failure to use a right-hand turn signal at an intersection amounts to a violation and justifies a traffic stop.

In United States v. Jason Smith, No. 11-2016, the appellate panel affirmed a ruling by U.S. Judge Robert Miller in the Northern District of Indiana.

The District Court considered the case of Jason Smith, who was pulled over in July 2010 by a marked police car with a narcotics canine inside after the officer saw Smith’s vehicle turning right at a South Bend intersection without using a signal. The officer had previously received a tip about that vehicle being driven by a man carrying a gun and illegal drugs, and the license plate matched the information that an informant had provided. When Smith didn’t use his turn signal, the officer initiated a traffic stop which led to a search revealing a gun, marijuana, crack cocaine and a digital scale.

Smith was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm, possession of crack cocaine with intent to deliver and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug transaction. Smith filed a motion to suppress the items recovered in the search on grounds that the traffic stop was unlawful, specifically because he wasn’t turning at the intersection but “bearing right.” The District judge found the stop didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment because it was “enough of a turn that Indiana law requires a signal,” and a jury convicted Smith on all three counts. He received a sentence of 165 months imprisonment.

On appeal, the 7th Circuit noted that Indiana law doesn’t specifically define a “turn” but it relied on state court precedent to find that Smith was sufficiently “rotated” and a plain reading of Indiana’s statute equates that movement to a turn. As a result, the officer had probable cause to pull Smith over because he didn’t use a signal. The appellate court didn’t address the question of whether the vehicle’s window tinting provided independent grounds for justifying the stop, an aspect that had come up in the case.

The 7th Circuit also briefly addressed an issue Smith argued about when the traffic stop occurred. The charging information said July 13, 2010, and at trial the government noted that the events actually occurred on July 14. Smith argued the state constructively amended his indictment and he moved for acquittal, and the court denied that motion. The appellate court found the difference in date didn’t result in an impermissible constructive amendment based on its own caselaw.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT