By Jeff Nehring | Nehring Law Office, PLLC
On May 22, 2026, the North Dakota Supreme Court decided Porteus v. N.D. Department of Transportation, 2026 ND 103. It is a short opinion with a long shadow. The 100-foot signal requirement itself is not new — N.D.C.C. § 39-10-38(2) has been on the books for decades. What Porteus did was expand the reach of that existing rule by clarifying that the 100-foot signal requirement is not satisfied by signaling after a complete stop at a stop sign. The implications for ordinary drivers — and for the scope of lawful traffic stops in North Dakota — are significant, and members of the public should understand what this decision means in their daily lives.
Here is the bottom line, in plain English: if you do not have your turn signal on for at least 100 feet before every turning movement, your turn is illegal — and the police can pull you over. It does not matter if you came to a complete stop at a stop sign. It does not matter if you signaled before you turned. If your blinker was not on for the last 100 feet you traveled before the turn, the statute has been violated, and that is enough to justify a traffic stop.
What Happened in Porteus
Katie Lynn Porteus was driving in Dickinson. She approached an intersection controlled by a stop sign, came to a complete stop, activated her turn signal, and then turned. A Dickinson police officer stopped her because she had not signaled 100 feet before the intersection. After the stop, the officer reported smelling alcohol, ran field sobriety tests, administered a preliminary breath test, and arrested Porteus for DUI. The Department of Transportation suspended her license for 91 days.
Porteus challenged the stop. Her position was straightforward: the statute requires a signal “during not less than the last one hundred feet traveled by the vehicle before turning.” A vehicle that is fully stopped at a stop sign is not “traveling.” She signaled “before turning,” exactly as the statute says.
That argument was rejected at every level — the hearing officer, the district court, and ultimately the North Dakota Supreme Court.
What the Decision Holds
The 100-foot signal requirement has existed in North Dakota law for many years. Porteus did not create the rule — it expanded how the rule applies. The holding is now binding statewide. Under N.D.C.C. § 39-10-38(2), a driver must give a continuous turn signal during the last 100 feet of travel before turning, moving right or left, merging, or changing lanes. A momentary stop at a stop sign or other traffic control device does not reset the clock. Looking back from the moment of the turn, the previous 100 feet of travel must include a continuous signal — period. If the signal was activated only after the stop, the statute has been violated, even if the vehicle never actually moved during the time the signal was off.
That is the law in North Dakota today.
Why This Matters for the Public
There are several reasons drivers should pay close attention to this rule.
First, the rule now reaches more conduct than most people realize. In town, intersections are often less than 100 feet apart. You pull out of a parking lot, drive half a block, and turn — that is not 100 feet. You turn out of an alley onto a side street and then onto a main street — those movements happen in much less than 100 feet. Under the current interpretation of § 39-10-38(2), every one of those turns can be a technical violation, and every one of those turns can give an officer reasonable suspicion to pull you over.
Second, the rule does not match the purpose most drivers assume signal laws serve. The point of a turn signal, as most people understand it, is to communicate your intention to other drivers and pedestrians so the movement can be made safely. A driver who is stopped at a stop sign, activates her signal, and then turns has communicated her intent clearly. The signal violation exists not because the turn was unsafe, but because the precise mechanical requirement of 100 continuous feet of signal was not met. Drivers need to understand that the safety of the turn is not the legal test.
Third, the rule creates situations where compliance is physically impossible. Consider the most basic example: you park your car in your own driveway. If your driveway is less than 100 feet from the street — and most driveways in North Dakota are — you cannot complete 100 feet of continuous signal before your turn onto the street, because there is not 100 feet to travel. It does not matter that your blinker was on the entire time you backed out and started forward.
The same problem applies to parallel parking. If you are parked along the street and the car ahead of you — or a mailbox, fire hydrant, or other obstruction — is within 100 feet, there simply is not 100 feet of “traveled” distance in which to give a continuous signal before you pull back into traffic. The same is true of turning out of parking lots, alleys, and short side streets across nearly every town in the state.
These are not edge cases. They are ordinary, daily driving movements that millions of North Dakotans make without a second thought.
Fourth, this rule is a powerful tool for traffic stops generally. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Whren v. United States that any observed traffic violation gives an officer probable cause to stop a vehicle, regardless of the officer’s actual motive. After Porteus, an officer who wants to stop a particular driver — for any reason — can simply wait for a turn that does not include 100 feet of continuous prior signal. That will usually happen within minutes. Once the stop is made, anything the officer sees, smells, or hears can be used to escalate the encounter into a DUI investigation, a search, or an arrest.
What This Means for Drivers
If you drive in North Dakota, the practical takeaway is simple: turn your blinker on early, and leave it on. Before you reach the stop sign. Before you approach the intersection. Well before you start slowing down for the turn. If you can put 100 feet of continuous signal between the moment you activate the blinker and the moment you start turning the wheel, you are safe. Anything less, and an officer may have a lawful reason to pull you over.
This sounds like a small thing. It is not. A 91-day license suspension — like the one Porteus received — can cost you your job, your ability to get your kids to school, and thousands of dollars in fines, fees, and insurance increases. And in many cases, the underlying traffic stop is the only thing standing between an ordinary night out and a DUI charge.
What This Means for Defense Attorneys
For those of us who defend DUI and traffic cases, Porteus settles a question that had been an open argument: signaling immediately before a turn — even after a complete stop — does not by itself satisfy § 39-10-38(2). Future challenges will need to focus on different ground: the actual distance traveled before the turn, the visibility of the signal, the officer’s vantage point, the dash-cam evidence, and the totality of the circumstances at the moment of the stop.
It also means we need to look harder at what happens after the stop. If the only reason for the stop is a 100-foot signal issue, every minute of detention beyond what is necessary to write a warning or citation needs to be justified by independent reasonable suspicion. The statute may now give the State an easy entry; it does not give the State unlimited time inside.
A Possible Constitutional Vagueness Argument
There is also a serious constitutional argument that may be available in the right future case. A statute may violate due process if it is so vague that ordinary people cannot tell what it prohibits, or if it criminalizes conduct that the driver has no realistic way to avoid. The current interpretation of § 39-10-38(2) raises both concerns.
As applied to short driveways, parallel parking, parking lots, alleys, and tightly spaced intersections, the statute now reaches turns that drivers cannot physically make with 100 feet of prior continuous signal — because there is not 100 feet of prior travel available. When the only way to fully comply with the law is to never leave a short driveway, never parallel park near another car, and never use a parking lot, that is exactly the kind of situation the void-for-vagueness doctrine is designed to address. A related principle of statutory construction holds that statutes should not be read to produce absurd or impossible results.
These arguments were not squarely presented in Porteus, which involved a turn at a controlled intersection with ample prior distance. In a future case with the right facts — for example, a stop made immediately after a driver pulled out of a short driveway or a parallel parking spot — there is room to argue that § 39-10-38(2), as currently interpreted, is unconstitutionally vague as applied. That avenue remains open.
Final Thoughts
Porteus is now the law in North Dakota, and every driver in the state should adjust accordingly. The safest course is to signal earlier than feels necessary, well before any turn, and to keep the signal on continuously through the turn itself. The legislature, of course, can revisit § 39-10-38(2) at any time to address how the statute applies in real-world driving situations such as short driveways and parallel parking, and that is a conversation worth having.
If you have been stopped, cited, or charged based on a turn-signal violation under Porteus, call my office. There may still be defenses available depending on the facts of your case — and even when the stop itself holds up, what happened next often does not.
Jeff Nehring is a criminal defense attorney with Nehring Law Office, PLLC, in Williston, North Dakota. He represents people accused of DUI, traffic offenses, and other criminal matters in North Dakota and Montana. This post is general legal commentary and is not legal advice. If you need advice about your specific case, contact a lawyer.
Nehring Law Office, PLLC
113 E. Broadway, Ste. 1
Williston, ND 58801
701-577-5555
info@nehringlaw.com