The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals on Wednesday ruled that a driver cannot be pulled over for failure to signal when that conduct did not affect any other driver. The decision came down in the case of Antoinette Feaster, 37, who was stopped and arrested on August 15, 2007 around 11am. Rutherford County Sheriff’s Department Officer Travis Robinson had set up a speed trap on the median of Interstate 24 when he saw Feaster’s Chevrolet Tahoe traveling about 8 MPH below the speed limit and making a lane change without signaling. Feaster’s attorney quizzed Robinson on the stand at trial about his recollection of the incident.
ATTORNEY: Okay. And did you see any vehicle put on the brakes as a result of this lane change?
ROBINSON: There were several vehicles around. I can’t recall at this time.
ATTORNEY: Did you see any vehicle having to leave the road as a result of this lane change?
ROBINSON: I don’t recall any vehicles leaving the road, no, sir.
The three-judge panel considered, based on these facts, whether the stop was justified.
“We conclude that this testimony is insufficient to support a violation of section 55-8-143(a),” Judge David H. Welles wrote for the court. “It does not establish that the defendant maneuvered her vehicle in ‘close proximity’ to other vehicles such that those vehicles may have been affected by her lane change.”
Under Tennessee case law, the signal is required when “any other vehicle may be affected” by the lane change.
“We are mindful of the fact that section 55-8-143(a) does not require evidence that other vehicles actually were affected by a defendant’s turn or lane change; our precedents have considered such evidence important only because the fact of an actual effect on another vehicle necessarily establishes the possibility of that effect… To be sure, we can easily imagine a scenario in which a vehicle, traveling in a medium amount of traffic with other vehicles around it, changes lanes in a way that may affect other vehicles. This case simply lacks specific evidence that such an event actually occurred. In order to establish a violation of section 55-8-143(a), the evidence must show that a vehicle turned or changed lanes without signaling and that this failure to signal at least threatened to create a hazard involving other vehicles.”
With the traffic stop thrown out as invalid, the court suppressed the evidence obtained after a drug dog was brought in to search Feaster’s Tahoe. The dog found two bags containing 135.4 grams of cocaine in the vehicle. Feaster had been sentenced to eight years in jail.
A copy of the decision is available in a 140k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: 
Tennessee v. Feaster (Court of Criminal Appeals, State of Tennessee, 7/21/2010)
[Courtesy:Thenewspaper.com]
Did they return her cocaine?
Twotone
Yeah, about 35 grams…
Sometimes guilty people have to get off in order to preserve the rights of the innocent. The officer screwed up by not using a different reason to pull her over, like erratic driving. Going 8MPH under on an interstate seems erratic to me, even if not illegal.
I thought it was the law to use the turn signal for any change in direction. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a lane change or a complete turn. And it doesn’t matter that there’s no one around.
Wow, I am surprised the law is written that way. So if a tree falls in the woods…
I would love if people were pulled over for turn signal violations. Or change the damn law. it just seems unfair to abide by a law, and seeing others ignore it.
This ruling let a drug dealer off the hook, plain and simple. The amount involved was more than could possibly be considered personal use. Does this mean you can blow through a stop sign at 2AM if no one else is around in Tennessee? The justice system in this country would get a lot more respect if it involved just a touch of common sense.
While i hate to see a drug dealer go free, the ruling was regarding signalling while making a lane change not failure to stop at a posted intersection. I actually agree with this ruling and the law at least in a purely theoretical sense. In the real world a simple approach would be to require signalling, period, without any judgement as to other traffic.
I was pulled over once at 2:30AM for an illegal trun, but the cop let me go without a ticket once he determined that I wasn’t drunk and after I explained that I didn’t see any cars on the road or the cross street that I turned onto (there weren’t, he was parked in a lto and I missed seeing his cruiser). I guess some people think I should have received the ticket because somebody could have been on the road, and I could have caused an accident.
Tennessee needs to fix its law. Turn signal use should be required for lane changes, period. The hyper-technical reading of the law by the court of appeals in the context of cutting a drug dealer free may be lauded by some neo-anarchist leaning libertarians, but reasonable people will find it pretty absurd.
I would imagine Ms. Feaster will not enjoy her freedom for very long….karma has a way of b!tch-slapping the hubris out of people. 135 grams of Bolivian marching powder!…since she had to pay appeal lawyers, I imagine she’ll be back dealing coke before you can say “intervention.” With a large target on her back for the local DEA….
Libertarian as I am in many of my sensibilities, I have a healthy lack of respect for “the law,” and just about every other creation of man. Laws need to be written and implemented on the basis of its spirit and not just sole technical wording. That and common sense. Common sense only half ruled day. Having the turning signal offense tossed out is good, and I also like the law the way it is written. Having that throw out the drug charges…..um….stupid. Then again, I gave up hope in humanity long ago, so I digress, time for me to get ready to work and endure another eight hours of mental mind rape at the hand of the cellphone consumer.
That is the way I drive…if there is no one to signal to, I don’t signal.
It is too bad that the drug dealing offense went away too, but come on people, the law is a blunt instrument. The drug dealer will get hers…what goes around comes around.
@contrarian
Most of the interstate speed limits are set at 70mph, with exceptions being within the city limits of the bigger cities. The slowest you can drive on the 70mph portions is 55 mph and the others is 45mph.
This law makes sense. What’s the point of signaling when you know there is no one make aware your turning. It isn’t like we need more reasons for the cop to stop you here.
On the stretch of I-40 I use everyday, I see police, actually narc officers, stop plenty of vehicles and then complete many searches. (Especially if they have out of state tags.)
I disagree about the law. Just because you can’t see another car around, doesn’t mean that there isn’t one, or a pedestrian. Making it a blanket policy that you have to signal every time you change lanes or turn takes driver judgement out of the equation, which is safer for everyone.
I am glad to see the woman was released though. We lock up far too many people for far too many silly things. It’s always nice when the police have to throw one back.
Can’t say that I like the outcome. Not signaling really pisses me off. It should be an automatic part of driving, not just if you think someone is around. Just my HO…
Here’s the problem. You are putting the Police in a catch 22 with a crazy law like this. Basically, the only way this ticket could be proven is if there was an actual accident. But here is my problem with all of this. Why on earth is a drug dog being used to sniff a car down when the Police only pulled the woman over for a turn signal violation? Wouldn’t that be considered an illegal search? Why not just write the lady a ticket for not using a turn signal and let her go on her way? I don’t know. I just don’t have enough faith is the Police today and wouldn’t put it past one of those glory hounds to put something in my car to make the dog react to it. Then use the dog as probable cause to search the car. I’ve seen dogs respond to jelly donuts in a locker once when I was in the Army. Is that probable cause to search? I sure hope not. Plus the cops set people up like this too. If they ask for permission to search your car and you say no, then they just detain you until the dog arrives. They then get the dog to alert so they have probable cause to search your vehicle. Now if they don’t find anything, there is a chance they could be sued for violating your legal rights. So what do they do????? OH!!!! We found a bag of dope under your seat while we were searching you car….. RIGHT!!!!! You all get the idea…. Don’t think for a minute it don’t happen….