Background
A Dickinson police officer stopped Katie Lynn Porteus after observing that she failed to activate her turn signal until after she had already come to a complete stop at a stop-sign-controlled intersection — well short of the 100-foot continuous-signal requirement under N.D.C.C. § 39-10-38(2). Dash camera footage confirmed the officer’s account: Porteus did not turn on her signal at any point before reaching the stop sign. Following the stop, the officer detected the odor of alcohol, administered field sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test, and arrested Porteus for driving under the influence.
Porteus requested an administrative hearing before the North Dakota Department of Transportation. The hearing officer found that the officer had an objectively reasonable basis for the stop, concluded Porteus violated the turn-signal statute, and suspended her driving privileges for 91 days. Porteus sought reconsideration, which was denied, then appealed to the Stark County District Court, which affirmed. She then appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court.
On appeal, Porteus raised two related arguments: (1) that the officer lacked reasonable and articulable suspicion to initiate the stop because stopping at a stop sign breaks any duty to continuously signal, and (2) that the officer unreasonably interpreted § 39-10-38(2) by applying it to a vehicle that was momentarily at rest.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court affirmed the 91-day suspension unanimously. Construing § 39-10-38(2) under its plain language, the Court held that the statute requires a driver to signal continuously for no less than the last 100 feet of travel before turning — and that a mandatory stop at a stop sign does not interrupt or eliminate that obligation. The Court reasoned that the participial phrase “traveled by the vehicle” simply identifies the relevant 100-foot window immediately preceding the turn; it does not limit the duty to vehicles in uninterrupted forward motion. Porteus traveled at least 100 feet before turning and failed to signal during that distance, placing her squarely within the statute’s prohibition.
The Court further held that because the officer’s interpretation of the statute was correct, the stop was supported by an observed traffic violation and did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or Article I, § 8 of the North Dakota Constitution. Reasonable and articulable suspicion existed, the Department’s order was in accordance with the law, and the hearing officer’s findings of fact adequately supported its conclusions.
Key Takeaways
- Under N.D.C.C. § 39-10-38(2), a driver must activate a turn signal continuously for at least 100 feet of travel before turning, regardless of whether a complete stop occurs in that interval.
- A mandatory stop at a stop sign does not break the 100-foot continuous-signal obligation — the duty attaches to the distance traveled before the turn, not to uninterrupted movement.
- An officer who observes a driver signal only after stopping at an intersection has reasonable and articulable suspicion of a traffic violation sufficient to justify an investigatory stop under the Fourth Amendment.
- North Dakota courts give deference to agency findings of fact in license-suspension proceedings and review legal conclusions de novo under N.D.C.C. § 28-32-46.
Why It Matters
This decision resolves an open question about the scope of North Dakota’s turn-signal statute and closes a potential loophole for drivers who argue that stopping before signaling satisfies the law. By clarifying that travel — including travel that includes a required stop — triggers the 100-foot signal duty, the Court aligns the statute with its evident safety purpose and gives law enforcement a clear, objective standard for traffic enforcement.
For practitioners handling DUI or license-suspension cases in North Dakota, Porteus confirms that a late-signal stop will survive Fourth Amendment challenge so long as the officer’s reading of § 39-10-38(2) is objectively reasonable. It also reinforces that administrative license suspensions will be upheld when the underlying stop is lawful, even when the driver’s statutory argument is colorable but ultimately unpersuasive.