By: Derek Hawkins//February 29, 2016//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: United States of America v. LeShawn Stanbridge
Case No.: 15-2686
Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and BAUER and POSNER, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Motion to Suppress
Court erred in relying on misunderstanding of Illinois law to deny motion to suppress.
“We agree with Stanbridge that § 11-804 is not ambiguous, and does not require a driver to signal for 100 feet before pulling alongside a curb to park. The minimum signaling distances required by subsection (b) apply only when a driver intends “to turn right or left” (emphasis added). And no other subsection includes an explicit command to signal be- fore moving toward a curb to park. As the district court not- ed, “[i]f the Illinois General Assembly had meant for the signal requirement to apply to a motorist pulling to a stop at the curb under § 11-804(d), it knew how to do so explicitly, as § 11-804(d) clearly requires the use of a turn signal before ‘start[ing] from a parallel parked position’.” This is a sensible reading of the statute, and the government has not given us reason to think that the legislature intended to require drivers seeking parking in congested urban areas to continuously signal for 100 feet before determining that a possible parking space is not only large enough, but also free of fire hydrants, yellow curbs, and other parking restrictions.”
Vacated and Remanded