Can the Police Arrest You for Viloating a Law Even the Supreme C
Can the Police Arrest You for Viloating a Law Even the Supreme Court Says Is Nonsensical?
By Kimberly B. Cheney
Bridgett was driving alone in Middlebury. Behind her was a state police car with a drug sniffing dog. (We don’t know if she saw the car. You judge from the stated facts.)The officer saw her make a left-hand turn onto Charles Ave. (We don’t know if she signaled.) The officer then observed her come to a stop sign, come to a full stop, signal for a turn and make the turn. The officer followed and observed her make two more such stops, signals, and lawful turns.
The officer stopped the car and asked Bridgett for her license and proof of insurance. She had neither. The officer asked for her name. Bridgett gave him a false one. The officer didn’t know it was false, but recognized the name as someone involved in drugs.Bridgett was nervous and pushed her purse under the seat with her feet. Believing the purse had drugs in it, the officer had the dog sniff the outside of the car. The dog alerted. Bridgett was arrested and charged with possession of small amount of cocaine, driving with a suspended license, and giving false information to the officer.She moved to suppress the evidence, claiming the stop was illegal. The trial court refused, and Bridgett appealed to the Supreme Court.
The motor vehicle law requires a driver to signal intent to turn at least 100 feet before doing so “when required.” The state argued that the officer saw the law violation and therefore had the authority to stop Bridgett. Bridgett argued the stop was a pretext for a drug search. The law violation was technical, she said: turn signals are “required” only when traffic conditions require it for safety reasons, motorists are not typically stopped for such a trivial offense, she was never charged with a motor vehicle offense and the dog was brought out almost instantaneously.
The court ruled for the state. A unanimous court ruled that if Bridgett violated the law, the officer could stop her regardless of what motive he had. The “required” language the Court said referred to another law that says turn signals are “required at intersections,” so, since it is required to signal at an intersection, it also required to signal 100 feet before the intersection.
However, the court opinion states the court agreed with Bridgett that the statutory scheme didn’t make much sense. Few motorists would be aware they must signal 100 feet before an intersection, and probably even safety-conscious drivers seldom do so. There was no apparent reason for the law, the court said, but nevertheless is the law and Bridgett violated it. The court urged the legislature to change it, but said Bridgett was guilty.
It’s said that the Roman Emperor Caligula posted new laws high on the columns of buildings so citizens couldn’t read them and figure out how to avoid their penalties. Perhaps the justices are not classical scholars, so history repeats itself.
