Must Utah drivers signal before each individual lane change? State v. Olivarez Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed an important question about lane change requirements in State v. Olivarez, clarifying when officers have reasonable suspicion to initiate traffic stops for signaling violations.

Background and Facts

Romeo Olivarez activated his turn signal and moved from lane two across lane three into lane four in one continuous movement on a four-lane off-ramp. An officer observed this maneuver and stopped Olivarez for an illegal lane change, stating Olivarez “went across all the traffic without leaving the appropriate two second signal.” During the stop, officers discovered Olivarez’s license was denied and the vehicle belonged to someone else. After Olivarez exited the vehicle and officers found brass knuckles, they conducted an inventory search that revealed heroin and methamphetamine.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two primary issues: (1) whether an officer has reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation when a motorist signals for two seconds before making multiple lane changes in one continuous movement, and (2) whether the vehicle impound and subsequent inventory search violated the Fourth Amendment when the driver lacked a valid license and no qualified person was present to take possession.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court interpreted Utah Code section 41-6a-804, which requires “an appropriate signal has been given” before any lane change and specifies that signals must be given “continuously for at least the last two seconds preceding the beginning of the movement.” The court emphasized that “the movement” is singular, meaning each individual lane change constitutes a separate movement requiring its own two-second signal. The court rejected Olivarez’s argument that one signal sufficed for multiple continuous lane changes, noting this interpretation would create safety hazards and unpredictable driving patterns.

Regarding the inventory search, the court found the impound constitutionally justified under State v. Johnson because Olivarez lacked a valid license, was not the vehicle’s owner, and no qualified person was present to take possession when the impound decision was made.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that Utah’s signaling statute requires strict compliance for each lane change, even during continuous movements. Practitioners defending traffic stop challenges should carefully examine whether clients actually signaled for the full two seconds before each individual lane change. The ruling also reinforces that inventory searches following lawful impounds remain viable when drivers lack proper licensing and no alternatives exist for vehicle custody.