State v. Doebel, Minn.Ct.App., 11/23/2010. A deputy sheriff stopped Mr. Doebel’s car because Mr. Doebel did not signal a lane change. Mr. Doebel apparently had seen an emergency vehicle off on the shoulder and in an effort to avoid a ticket for remaining the right lane as he whizzed past the emergency vehicle he moved into the left lane. He should have stayed where he was because the deputy found all manner of contraband in Mr. Doebel’s car and discovered that he was drunk to boot.
Mr. Doebel challenged the stop. There are two statutes in play. The first, more general statute, says that no person shall “move right or left upon a highway unless and until the movement can be made with reasonable safety after giving an appropriate signal.” Minn. Stat. § 169.19, subd. 4. The other statute, specific to emergency vehicles, says:
When approaching and before passing an authorized emergency vehicle with its emergency lights activated that is parked or otherwise stopped on or next to a street or highway having two lanes in the same direction, the driver of a vehicle shall safely move the vehicle to the lane farthest away from the emergency vehicle, if it is possible to do so.
Minn. Stat. § 169.18, subd. 11(a).
This emergency vehicle statute says nothing about giving a signal before getting out the way of (the wrath) of the emergency vehicle (or another emergency vehicle following behind you.) If a general statute is in conflict with a specific statute, the courts are to try to give effect to them both. Minn. Stat. § 645.26, subd. 1 (2008). No argument there. The appellate court decides to “give effect” to both by reading into the emergency vehicle statute the requirement of giving a signal. The court does throw a little bone, however, saying that had it been necessary for Mr. Doebel to have made an abrupt lane change to avoid plowing into the emergency vehicle then perhaps no signal would have been required.
No comments:
Post a Comment