881 N.W.2d 244
N.D.2016Background
- Deputies responded to a report of drug use in a Turtle Lake alley; one deputy surveilled and observed a pickup exit the alley without signaling.
- The alley was testified to be paved (and partly gravel), open to the public, and maintained by the city.
- The deputy who observed the alleged failure to signal radioed a second deputy, who stopped and arrested John Hirschkorn for DUI.
- Hirschkorn moved to suppress evidence from the stop, arguing no reasonable suspicion existed because the law does not require signaling when exiting an alley.
- The district court granted suppression, reasoning that the alley-specific statute governing exits (N.D.C.C. § 39-10-45) does not require signaling and thus supersedes the general signaling requirement.
- The State appealed; the Supreme Court reversed, concluding the general signaling rule applies and, alternatively, that an objectively reasonable mistake of law by the officer would still justify the stop.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether drivers must signal before exiting an alley | Signaling requirement in the general statute applies to roadways, so it applies when an alley qualifies as a roadway | Alley-specific statute governs exits and omits a signaling requirement, so drivers need not signal when exiting alleys | General signaling statute and alley-exit statute harmonize; drivers must signal before exiting an alley that qualifies as a roadway |
| Whether the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion | The failure to signal provided reasonable suspicion because the alley was a roadway and signaling was required | No traffic violation occurred (no signaling requirement), so no reasonable suspicion | Even if signaling were not a violation, the deputy’s objectively reasonable mistake of law would supply reasonable suspicion under Heien |
Key Cases Cited
- Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (U.S. 2014) (an officer’s objectively reasonable mistake of law can supply reasonable suspicion for a stop)
- State v. McLaren, 773 N.W.2d 416 (N.D. 2009) (traffic violations provide a proper basis for investigatory stops)
- VND, LLC v. Leevers Foods, Inc., 672 N.W.2d 445 (N.D. 2003) (statutory interpretation: statutes construed as a whole and harmonized)
- Trade ‘N Post, L.L.C. v. World Duty Free Americas, Inc., 628 N.W.2d 707 (N.D. 2001) (legislative omissions can indicate intent)
- State v. Smith, 691 N.W.2d 203 (N.D. 2005) (standards for appellate review of reasonable suspicion and legal questions)