[¶ 1] The State appealed a district court order suppressing evidence obtained from a traffic stop of John Hirschkorn. We reverse and remand.
I
[¶ 2] Hirschkorn moved to suppress evidence obtained in a traffic stop resulting in his arrest for driving under the influence. According to testimony at the suppression hearing, a McLean County Sheriffs deputy responded to reported drug use in a Turtle Lake alley. The deputy testified the alley was paved and maintained by the City of Turtle Lake. A second deputy testified the alley was paved and gravel in part, but was nonetheless public. Upon surveiling the area, the first deputy testified to observing a vehicle exit the alley without signaling before turning. Believing this failure was a traffic violation, the deputy radioed the second deputy to stop the vehicle. After executing the stop, the second deputy arrested Hirsch-korn.
[¶ 3] Hirschkorn moved to suppress evidence obtained from the stop, arguing no reasonable suspicion justified the stop because the law does not require drivers to signal prior to exiting alleys. Following the suppression hearing, the district court found the first deputy “observed a pickup emerge from an alley without using a turn signal.” After noting drivers must generally signal before turning, the court also noted the statutory section specifically regulating driver conduct while exiting alleys does not contain this requirement. The court found this specific section, and its lack of a requirement to signal, took precedence over the general requirement to signal, meaning drivers do not have to signal prior to exiting alleys. Because Hirsch-korn’s failure to signal was not a traffic violation, the district court concluded no reasonable suspicion justified the traffic stop. The court accordingly suppressed evidence resulting from the stop.
II
[¶ 4] On appeal, the State argues the district court erred in suppressing evi
[[Image here]]
[¶ 5] As presented by the parties, this appeal concerns interpreting whether drivers must signal prior to exiting alleys. Statutory interpretation is a question of law fully reviewable on appeal.
VND, LLC v. Leevers Foods, Inc.,
[¶ 6] Chapter 39-10, N.D.C.C., governs “the operation of vehicles upon highways or other places open to the public for the operation of vehicles_” N.D.C.C. § 39-10-01(1). Highways generally include “every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel — ” N.D.C.C. § 39-01-01(29). Within N.D.C.C. ch. 39-10, statutory provisions regulating highways generally apply “except when a different place is specifically referred to in a given section.” N.D.C.C. § 39-10-01(1).
[¶ 7] Under N.D.C.C.- § 39-10-38(1), no “person may turn a vehicle or move right or left upon a roadway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety without giving an appropriate signal — ” Chapter 39-10, N.D.C.C., defines a roadway as “that portion of a highway improved, .designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the berm or shoulder.” N.D.C.C, § 39-01-01(73). Reading these two provisions and the definition . of highway at N.D.C.C. § 39-01-01(29) together, no person may turn a vehicle or move right or left upon that portion of a publicly niain-tained way improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel without giving an appropriate signal. In addition, N.D.C.C. § 39-10-45 governs driver conduct while exiting alleys, providing:
The driver of a vehicle emerging from an alley .,, shall stop such vehicle immediately prior to driving onto a sidewalk or onto the sidewalk area extending across such alley ... or in the event there is no sidewalk area, shall stop at the point nearest the street to be entered where the driver has a view of approaching traffic thereon.
Accordingly, under these provisions, drivers on roadways must signal prior to turning or moving their vehicles and must stop at statutorily prescribed distances prior to exiting alleys.
[¶ 8] According to Hirschkorn, N.D.C.C. § 39-10-38(1) does not apply to drivers exiting alleys because generally applicable laws, such as N.D.C.C. § 39-10-38(1), do not apply “when a different place is specifically referred to in a given section.” N.D.C.C. § 39-10-01(1). Because N.D.C.C. § 39-10-45 specifically refers to alley exits, Hirschkorn argues N.D.C.C. § 39-10-45 operates to the exclusion of N.D.C.C. §.39-10-38(1). • Thus, Hirsch-korn argues his failure to signal was not a traffic violation because N.D.C.C. § 39-10-45 contains no signaling requirement. In
[¶ 9] We agree with the State’s argument Hirschkorn and the district court misinterpreted the law. As a principle of statutory construction,'-we must construe related statutes as consistent with one another so as to effectuate both unless the statutes are irreconcilable. N.D.C.C. § 1-02-07. Under a concerted, harmonious interpretation, N.D.C.C. § 39-10-45 supplements rather than supplants N.D.C.C. § 39-10-38(1). Read together, N.D.C.C. § 39-10-38(1) and N.D.C.C. § 39-10-45 require drivers to stop at specific distances before exiting alleys in addition to, but not exclusive of, requiring drivers on roadways to .signal when appropriate. With his argument, Hirschkorn invites us to read disharmony into N.D.C.C. § 39-10-45 and N.D.C.C. § 39-10-38(1) when none exists.
[¶ 10] Extending the reasoning underlying Hirschkorn’s interpretation, N.D.C.C. § 39-10-45 would create a broad exception to general requirements set forth under N.D.C.C. ch. 39-10 for drivers exiting alleys because, like the signaling requirement at N.D.C.C. § 39 — 10—38(1), other requirements are also not delineated at N.D.C.C. § 39-10-45. Other statutory provisions reveal this interpretation is misplaced. For instance, N.D.C.C. § 39-10-14(2) and N.D.C.C. § 39-10-15(3) specifically allow drivers to drive on the left side of the road and in no passing zones, respectively, when turning into or from an alley, contrary to general requirements forbidding such conduct. If Hirschkorn’s interpretation controlled, there would be no need to specifically exempt drivers exiting alleys under these circumstances because N.D.C.C. § 39-10-45 would already have exempted drivers from such requirements. We cannot conclude the legislature intended for N.D.C.C. § 39-10-14(2), N.D.C.C. § 39-10-15(3), and other related provisions to be redundant, which is the necessary result of Hirschkorn’s argument. Furthermore, the legislature’s failure to exempt drivers from the requirement to signal while exiting alleys when it specifically exempted ’drivers exiting alleys from other requirements is an indication of its intent not to do so with the signaling requirement.
See Trade ‘N Post, L.L.C. v. World Duty Free Americas, Inc.,
[¶ 11] In addition to the foregoing, “[w]e construe statutes to avoid absurd or illogical results.”
Blomdahl v. Blomdahl,
B
[¶ 13] Even if we were to agree with Hirschkorn’s interpretation, the district court erred in suppressing evidence obtained in the traffic stop. At the district court and on appeal, the parties presented this case as one of statutory interpretation. But, statutory interpretation is secondary to the controlling issue of whether the deputy had reasonable suspicion Hirsch-korn committed a traffic violation. We have said:
As automobile stops constitute seizures, officers must have at least a reasonable suspicion that the motorist has violated the law or probable cause to believe the motorist has done so. Reasonable suspicion exists when a reasonable person in the officer’s position would be justified by some objective manifestation to suspect potential criminal activity. It is well settled, traffic violations, even if considered common or minor, constitute prohibited conduct which provide officers with requisite suspicion for conducting investigatory stops.
State v. McLaren,
[¶ 14] Whether a driver committed a traffic violation does not control whether an officer had the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify a traffic stop. Although not addressed by the parties, an officer’s objectively reasonable mistake, whether of fact or law, may provide the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify a traffic stop. In
Heien v. North Carolina,
— U.S.-,
Reasonable suspicion arises from the combination of an officer’s understanding of the facts and his understanding of the relevant law. The officer may be reasonably mistaken on either ground. Whether the facts turn out to be not what was thought, or the law turns out to be not what was thought, the result is the same: the facts are outside the scope of the law. There is no reason, under the text of the Fourth Amendment or our precedents, why this same result should be acceptable when reached by way of a reasonable mistake of fact, but not when reached by way of a similarly reasonable mistake of law.
Id.
at 536. Where an officer makes a mistake, whether of fact or law, such mis
[¶ 15] By litigating this case on the issue of statutory interpretation, the parties sought to adjudicate the criminality of Hirschkorn’s failure to signal. If the deputy’s interpretation was mistaken, Hirschkorn could not have been convicted for his failure to signal — even if the deputy’s belief was objectively reasonable — because Hirschkorn’s failure to signal would not have been a traffic violation. However, the deputy’s same mistaken interpretation could justify stopping Hirschkorn’s vehicle if the interpretation was objectively reasonable. As the Supreme Court stated: “just because mistakes of law cannot justify ... the imposition ... of criminal liability, it does not follow that they cannot justify an investigatory stop.” Id. at 540. Thus, the criminality of Hirschkorn’s failure to signal is relevant in determining whether reasonable suspicion existed only insofar as it plays into the analysis of whether the deputy’s interpretation was objectively reasonable. .
[¶ 16] We have little difficulty in concluding the deputy’s belief the law requires drivers to signal prior to exiting alleys was objectively reasonable under these circumstances, Prior to this case, we had not interpreted the extent and interplay of the various statutory provisions contained in N.D.C.C. ch. 39-10, with respect to the issue in this case. A plain reading of N.D.C.C. § 39-10-38(1) requires drivers signal prior to moving or turning on roadways. To the extent Hirsehkorn’s interpretation has merit, it relies on a melded reading of N.D.C.C. § 39-10-01(1) with N.D.C.C. § 39-10-45 to trump N.D.C.C. § 39-10-38(1), illustrating the statutory complexity confronting the deputy in determining whether to stop Hirschkorn. Even if assumed to be incorrect, we cannot say the deputy’s “sloppy study of the laws he is duty-bound to enforce” caused this belief.
Heien,
Ill
[¶ 17] We do not address the other arguments raised because they are either unnecessary to this decision or are without merit. We reverse the district court’s order suppressing evidence obtained in the traffic stop and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.