Always Signal Your Lane Change When Carrying Meth

STATE v. STYLES, NCApp No. COA06-684, on appeal from Swain Co. Superior Court, before CJ Martin, Js Steelman, Stephens, opinion by Steelman, dissent by Stephens, filed 07 Aug 2007.

LONG STORY SHORT: Officer had probable cause to stop a motorist who was directly in front of him and did not signal before changing lanes. Binding in NC unless reversed by the NC Supreme Court.

FACTS: At 0100 one morning, Officer Jones of Bryson City PD was traveling on a three-lane road in the same direction as Defendant. Two lanes ran in their same direction, and the third ran opposite. Defendant's vehicle was directly in front of Officer Jones' vehicle. Without signaling his intent beforehand, Defendant changed lanes. Officer Jones stopped Defendant and smelled marijuana on Defendant's person. Defendant did not consent to a search of his vehicle, so Officer Jones deployed his K9 partner to sniff the air around Defendant's vehicle. The K9 alerted, and Officer Jones found a small amount of marijuana and a pipe inside Defendant's vehicle. A search incident to arrest found methamphetamine on Defendant's person.

PROCEDURE: North Carolina indicted Defendant in Swain County Superior Court for possession of schedule II controlled substances, paraphernalia, and marijuana. Defendant moved to suppress all evidence, on grounds that that North Carolina statute required him to signal lane changes only when "the operation of any other vehicle may be affected by such movement." Defendant argued that since Officer Jones' vehicle could not have been affected, there was no traffic violation and therefore no readily observable probable cause to stop him. The trial court ruled that since Officer Jones was right behind Defendant, the operation of Officer Jones' vehicle may have been affected, and an investigatory stop was proper. MOTION TO SUPPRESS DENIED. Defendant pleaded guilty, reserving his right to appeal the denial of suppression to the Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

DECISION: The trial court found as fact that Defendant was directly in front of Officer Jones when he changed lanes without signaling. This was a readily observable traffic violation, and Officer Jones had probable cause to stop Defendant. In one respect, the trial court did err, in that the stop was not "investigatory;" readily observable traffic violations need no further "investigation," as would a suspected violation, such as driving while impaired. Probable cause exists whenever a reasonable officer readily observes a traffic violation, which Officer Jones did, so Defendant suffered no violation of any constitutional right. DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION AFFIRMED.

The dissent would have reversed the trial court's probable cause ruling. A careful reading of the trial court's findings of fact and Officer Jones' brief testimony did not clearly indicate that Defendant was "immediately" in front of him, just somewhere in front of him. At that late hour, no one else was on the road, and Defendant's lane change could not have affected any other vehicle's operation.

EDITORIAL: I dunno. Probably the guy WAS right in front of the officer, but the dissent's attention to detail does leave me a bit disquieted. Sure enough, there was no direct testimony as to how close or far away the guy was. I would have remanded it for further factfinding, and all the officer would have to do is testify truthfully that the guy was right in front of him. The NC Supreme Court recently took some of the elastic out of "the operation of any other vehicle may be affected by such movement," so remember to hold off on the blue lights if you have any doubt. At worst, you can follow him around until he commits another violation.