ROUNDABOUTS: THE WILD WEST OF IDAHO

During 2016, our law firm successfully defended a client who had been cited under Idaho Code § 18-8004, Driving under the Influence. Our first indication that this stop was improper was the Citation itself, which only identified a single violation for Driving under the Influence. There was no moving violation justifying the initial stop. Upon reviewing the Officer’s narrative, the sole basis for our client’s stop was a failure to signal entry or exit into the roundabout located in the city limits of Idaho Falls. While issues were brought up regarding breath alcohol testing and the equipment used, the main issue in this defense centered on the roundabout and a driver’s obligations to signal while negotiating the roundabout.

Idaho Falls, like other cities and counties, has begun developing roundabouts at certain intersections in an effort to allow traffic to flow more efficiently. One such intersection is located right in the heart of Idaho Falls where Memorial Drive, Riverside Drive and E Street intersect. At this intersection, our client was travelling northbound on Memorial Drive and exited the roundabout so as to continue proceeding north on Memorial Drive. After proceeding through the intersection, the client was immediately pulled over for failure to signal. Testing was performed and our client was arrested. (Ironically, the dashboard camera of the arresting officer showed that the officer himself failed to signal while entering and exiting the roundabout.) The dashboard camera also showed another vehicle which was pulled over by the police only a few yards away, which seems to indicate that it is a common practice to use alleged roundabout violations to justify stopping vehicles.

The statutes regarding roundabouts are scarce in Idaho, in fact, they are non-existent. No definition of a roundabout is even provided in Idaho Code § 49-119, the definition section of Title 49. Under Idaho Case Law, “an investigative detention must be based upon reasonable suspicion, derived from specific articulable facts that the person stopped has committed or is about to commit a crime.” State v. Salato, 137 Idaho 260, 47 P.3d 763 (Ct.App. 2001). The crime for which our client was allegedly pulled over was violation of Idaho Code Section 49-808(2), which requires turn signals to be used as follows:

A signal of intention to turn or move right or left when required shall be given continuously to warn other traffic. On controlled-access highways and before turning from a parked position, the signal shall be given continuously for not less than five (5) seconds and, in all other instances, for not less than the last one hundred (100) feet traveled by the vehicle before turning.

The issue facing our client did not involve a controlled-access highway or turning from a parked position. Therefore, under this statute, according to the officer, our client was required to use his turn signal one hundred feet before entering the roundabout and one hundred feet before exiting the roundabout.

However, the roundabouts being built in Idaho Falls and elsewhere are not as large as more traditional roundabouts found in Europe. Had our client signaled for a right turn prior to entering the roundabout as allegedly required, other vehicles would have assumed that our client was making a right turn onto E Street. Because of the proximity of the Memorial Drive entrance and the E Street exit, there is not sufficient time to distinguish between a turn signal for entering the roundabout and a turn signal to exit onto E Street. It is difficult for a driver to signal right to enter the roundabout, disengage the turn signal and then reengage the turn signal to turn right onto E Street. It is impossible to comply with the requirement of Idaho Code Section 49-808(2) that the turn signal must be activated “...for not less than the last one hundred (100) feet traveled by the vehicle before turning.” The turn signal requirement asserted by the officer is not possible within smaller roundabouts and could lead to potential accidents. If a driver signals for a right turn immediately prior to proceeding directly through the intersection, an approaching or following driver would reasonably assume the driver intended to turn right onto E Street. The same dilemma appears when signaling an exit from the Roundabout. Complying with the one hundred foot requirement would actually increase collisions because many of the newly constructed roundabouts are less than one hundred feet in circumference, requiring drivers to signal the entire time they are in the intersection regardless of whether they are exiting at the nearest exit. Drivers are left with the choice of strictly complying with the one hundred foot requirement of Idaho Code 49-808(2), which would serve only to confuse other drivers and would require multiple circles around a roundabout to meet the one hundred foot requirement before exiting, or risk being pulled over for not signaling.

As is true with most DUI’s, the first real test of our defense came during the Administrative License Suspension Hearing required by the Idaho Department of Transportation. The position we argued was that our client approached an intersection and drove straight through and because no turn was made, no signal was required to enter or exit the intersection. Fortunately for our client, the Administrative License Suspension was vacated, but not for the reasons we originally argued. The Hearing Officer relied almost entirely upon the persuasive holding of the Alaska Court of Appeals’ case of Noble v. State, 357 P.3d 1201, (Alaska Ct. App., 2015) in making the following findings:

1. Entering into a roundabout is not considered turning. Our client had to move to the right because traffic moves counterclockwise within the roundabout. When our client entered and drove within the roundabout, he was simply following the curvature of the roadway (driving around the roundabout’s center island). The curvature was similar to a curve on a road. Upon exiting the roundabout, our client continued to drive in the same direction in which he had entered the roundabout.
2. In the Noble decision, the Alaska Court of Appeals stated, “The underlying difficulty is that the signaling requirements...were designed for linear intersections. These requirements become problematic when applied to roundabouts because of the way in which the entrances and exits of the roundabout are configured, and the way traffic flows through a roundabout.” See Noble v. State, 357 P.3d 1201 (2015).
3. The Noble decision further stated, “But just as it is unclear whether the act of entering a roundabout constitutes a right turn, it is also unclear whether leaving a roundabout constitutes a turn (either to the left or the right).”
4. Idaho Code § 49-808 was last amended in 2005, before any roundabouts existed in Idaho. Therefore, a reasonable inference can be made that roundabouts were not taken into consideration when this statute was last amended.
5. Since there is no statute, rule, regulation or definition that is applicable to roundabouts, as provided in the Noble decision, there is no clear way to apply the signaling provisions of Idaho Code § 49-808 to roundabouts. 

The driver’s license suspension was denied by the Hearing Officer and the DUI was later dismissed by the City Prosecutor, based in part on these holdings. Our client retained his license, served no jail time and paid no fine.

It is clear that the Idaho Legislature, as confirmed by this Administrative Hearing Officer, has not created turn signal requirements for roundabouts. Any attempts by officers to assert a failure to signal when entering or exiting a roundabout is unjustified. The extent to which other “Rules of the Road” or local ordinances apply or do not apply to roundabouts is unclear, but for the moment, turn signals are not required under the laws of the State of Idaho when entering or exiting a roundabout.

Please contact Fuller & Beck Law Offices with questions regarding this or other legal issues.