People v. Hrlic

• Decision Date: 29 November 2007
• Docket Number: Docket No. 278053.
• Citation: 277 Mich. App. 260,744 N.W.2d 221
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lindsay Joyce HRLIC, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

744 N.W.2d 221

277 Mich. App. 260

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lindsay Joyce HRLIC, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 278053.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted November 6, 2007, at Lansing.

Decided November 29, 2007, at 9:00 a.m.

Released for Publication January 31, 2008.

Larry J. Burdick, Prosecuting Attorney, and Christine E. Hickman, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Mt. Pleasant, for the people.

Joseph T. Barberi, P.C. (by Geoffrey K. Rettig), Mt. Pleasant, for the defendant.

Before: TALBOT, P.J., and FITZGERALD and KIRSTEN FRANK KELLY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The prosecution appeals by leave granted from the circuit court's order reversing the district court's order denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

I. Basic Facts and Proceedings

At approximately 3:50 a.m., a police officer from Central Michigan University observed defendant's vehicle approach a street from a parking lot in Mt. Pleasant. The officer saw the driver use the turn signal and turn left onto the street. The officer continued to watch defendant's vehicle, and when he saw defendant change lanes without using a turn signal, he conducted a traffic stop. The officer discovered that defendant was intoxicated, and she was charged with operating a vehicle while intoxicated, MCL 257.625.

Defendant moved in the district court to suppress the evidence obtained pursuant to the traffic stop, arguing that MCL 257.648 does not require a driver to use a turn signal when changing lanes and that the traffic stop was therefore invalid. The district court denied the motion, stating:

I—I can certainly see how you can argue that that doesn't mean a lane change. But if it doesn't mean a lane change, what does it mean? The statute has to have some under—some meaning to it. It's got to have some—there's something the Legislature was attempting to control when it did this.

* * *

With—with all due respect to the Defense, I'm—I'm going to find that the Officer made an appropriate stop based upon this statute, which I interpret it to mean that you have to signal before you make a turn from one lane to another.

So I'm going to respectively deny the Motion[.]

Defendant appealed this decision to the circuit court, arguing that MCL 257.648 is unconstitutionally vague. The circuit court agreed and reversed the district court's order denying the motion, stating:

Because the phrase "turning from a direct line" does not notify a driver whether one should signal before turning from a lane, a roadway, or both, the statute is unconstitutionally vague....

The vague nature of the statute forces a person to speculate its meaning; so' it could not notify defendant that changing lanes without signaling is prohibited conduct. Thus, the traffic stop, based on the infraction of failing to signal a lane change, was an unreasonable seizure and all evidence obtained as a result must be suppressed.

II. Analysis

The prosecution argues that the circuit court erred in concluding that MCL 257.648 is unconstitutionally vague. We agree. We review de novo constitutional challenges, People v. McCuller, 479 Mich. 672, 681, 739 N.W.2d 563 (2007), and questions of statutory interpretation, People v. Anstey, 476 Mich. 436, 442, 719 N.W.2d 579 (2006). "Statutes are presumed to be constitutional, and a statute is to be construed in a constitutional manner unless the unconstitutionality of the statute is facially obvious." People v. Osantowski, 274 Mich.App. 593, 601, 736 N.W.2d 289 (2007); People v. Hill, 269 Mich.App. 505, 524, 715 N.W.2d 301 (2006). A trial court's findings of fact on a motion to suppress are reviewed for clear error, while the ultimate decision on the motion is reviewed de novo. People v. Williams, 472 Mich. 308, 313, 696 N.W.2d 636 (2005).

A statute may be unconstitutionally vague on any of three grounds: (1) it is overbroad, impinging on First Amendment freedoms, (2) it fails to provide fair notice of the conduct proscribed, or (3) it is so indefinite that it confers unlimited and unstructured discretion on the trier of fact to determine whether an offense has occurred. Hill, supra at 524, 715 N.W.2d 301; People v. Sands, 261 Mich.App. 158, 161, 680 N.W.2d 500 (2004). To evaluate a vagueness challenge, this Court must examine the entire text of the statute and give the words of the statute their ordinary meanings. Hill, supra, at 524, 715 N.W.2d 301; Sands, supra at 161, 680 N.W.2d 500. "To afford proper notice of the conduct proscribed, a statute must give a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited." Id. A term that requires persons of ordinary intelligence to speculate about its meaning and differ on its application may not be used. Id. To be sufficiently definite, the meaning of a term must be "fairly ascertainable by reference to judicial interpretations, the common law, dictionaries treatises, or the commonly accepted meanings of words." Id. at 161, 680 N.W.2d 500; Hill, supra at 524, 715 N.W.2d 301. Vagueness challenges must be considered in light of the facts" at issue. Sands, supra at 161, 680 N.W.2d 500.

Defendant claims that MCL 257.648 fails to provide fair notice of the conduct proscribed, in that it is not clear whether a driver is required to use a turn signal when changing lanes. MCL 257.648 provides, in pertinent part:

(1) The driver of a vehicle or bicycle upon a highway, before stopping or turning from a direct line, shall first see that the stopping or turning can be made in safety and shall give a signal as required in this section.

(2) A signal required in this section shall be given either by means of the hand and arm in the manner specified in this section, or by a mechanical or electrical signal device which conveys an intelligible signal or warning to other highway traffic, except as otherwise provided in subsection (3). When a signal is given by means of the hand and arm, the driver shall indicate his or her intention to stop or turn by extending his hand and arm from and beyond the left side of the vehicle and signal as follows:

(a) Left turn ... hand and arm extended horizontally.

(b) Right turn ... hand and arm ex tended upward.

(c) Stop or decrease speed ... hand and arm extended downward. [Emphasis added.]

Defendant contends that MCL 257.648 only applies to turns onto a different roadway. We disagree. The phrase "turning from a direct line" is not defined in the text of the statute, nor are the individual terms that comprise the phrase. We therefore construe them according to their ordinary meaning. Hill, supra at 524, 715 N.W.2d 301; Sands, supra at 161, 680 N.W.2d 500. The American Heritage Dictionary (1985) defines the term "turn," in part, as "[t]o cause to move around a central or focal point; rotate or revolve" or "[t]o change the direction or course of[.]" While rotating a vehicle may result in moving the vehicle from a roadway (as in a left turn onto a different roadway), there is nothing in this definition that limits a vehicle "turn" to such a movement. Indeed, a partial rotation would constitute movement around "a central or focal point," and it would constitute a change in direction or course. The fact that a rotation can be terminated and followed by another movement—for example, straightening out the vehicle once a given point is reached—does not mean that the movement was not a turn.

Further, it is commonly understood that a driver must "change the direction or course" to achieve a lane change, and our courts have, often used the term "turn" to describe a lane change. In Lewis v. Yund, 339 Mich. 441, 443-444, 64 N.W.2d 696 (1954), our Supreme Court repeatedly referred to changing lanes as turning in the...