Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 28
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-754 (2026)

Turning movements and required signals

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. A person shall not turn a vehicle at an intersection unless the vehicle is in proper position on the roadway as required in section 28-751, or turn a vehicle to enter a private road or driveway or otherwise turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left on a roadway unless and until the movement can be made with reasonable safety. A person shall not so turn any vehicle without giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided by this article in the event any other traffic may be affected by the movement.

B. A signal of intention to turn right or left when required shall be given continuously during not less than the last one hundred feet traveled by the vehicle before turning.

C. A person shall not stop or suddenly decrease the speed of a vehicle without first giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided by this article to the driver of any vehicle immediately to the rear when there is opportunity to give the signal.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1958–2024 · leading case: State v. Starr, 213 P.3d 214 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Starr, 213 P.3d 214 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 20× “¶ 13 We turn now to Defendant’s argument that the traffic stop was unlawful because he did not violate any provision of A.R.S. § 28-754 (2004). That section addresses “turning movements and required signals.”
Smith v. Cada, 562 P.2d 390 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 6× “1; and not turning off the roadway safely, in violation of A.R.S. § 28-754(A). Prior to the officer’s offer of the breathalyzer, Cada did not request an attorney.”
United States v. Abel Aguirre Mariscal, 285 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2002). · cites it 3× “See Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 28-754(A). While there was no evidence of traffic (Garrett was just watching the Crown Victoria), the district court observed that “McDowell Road is a heavily traveled east-west street in the City of Phoenix,” and denied the motion to suppress.”
State of Arizona v. Michael Anthony Salcido, 362 P.3d 508 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 8× “A person shall not so turn any vehicle without giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided by this article in the event any other traffic may be affected by the movement.”
Mahaffey v. State, 316 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “, A.R.S. § 28-754 (Arizona); A.C.A. § 27-51-403 (Arkansas).”
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court, 920 P.2d 784 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “§ ) 28-661 and making an unsafe turn in violation of A.R.S. § 28-754(A). In the municipal court proceeding, Martinez pled guilty to the leaving the scene charge and responsible to the unsafe turn charge.”
United States v. Berber-Tinoco, 510 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2007). “Although the prosecution failed to introduce any evidence as to whether traffic could be affected by the defendant’s turn, the district court judge concluded that this factor was met because “ ‘McDowell Road is a heavily traveled east-west street in the City of Phoenix.”
Doubek v. Greco, 436 P.2d 494 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 10× “” However, those cases were decided before A.R.S. § 28-754 subsec, A: “No person shall turn a vehicle * * * to enter a private road or driveway or otherwise turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left on a roadway unless and until the movement can be made with…”
Trojanovich v. Marshall, 388 P.2d 149 (Ariz. 1963). · cites it 3× “The instruction complained of is based on A.R.S. § 28-751(1) relative to turns at intersections.”
Stearman v. Miranda, 396 P.2d 622 (Ariz. 1964). · cites it 3× “The testimony is in conflict as to whether Stearman did in fact make a left turn signal, but in any event the statute A.R.S. § 28-754 requires that it be made 100 feet before a contemplated left turn.”
State v. Brown, 454 P.3d 870 (Wash. 2019). “2002)(alteration in original)(quoting Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-754 (A)). United States v.”
Taylor v. Sherrill, 802 P.2d 1058 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “Taylor was cited for an unsafe turn, in violation of A.R.S. § 28-754; speeding, in violation of A.”
Show all 30 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-754(A) — 10 cases
State v. Starr, 213 P.3d 214 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “¶ 13 We turn now to Defendant’s argument that the traffic stop was unlawful because he did not violate any provision of A.R.S. § 28-754 (2004). That section addresses “turning movements and required signals.”
Smith v. Cada, 562 P.2d 390 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977). “1; and not turning off the roadway safely, in violation of A.R.S. § 28-754(A). Prior to the officer’s offer of the breathalyzer, Cada did not request an attorney.”
United States v. Abel Aguirre Mariscal, 285 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2002). “See Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 28-754(A). While there was no evidence of traffic (Garrett was just watching the Crown Victoria), the district court observed that “McDowell Road is a heavily traveled east-west street in the City of Phoenix,” and denied the motion to suppress.”
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court, 920 P.2d 784 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). “§ ) 28-661 and making an unsafe turn in violation of A.R.S. § 28-754(A). In the municipal court proceeding, Martinez pled guilty to the leaving the scene charge and responsible to the unsafe turn charge.”
United States v. Berber-Tinoco, 510 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2007). “Although the prosecution failed to introduce any evidence as to whether traffic could be affected by the defendant’s turn, the district court judge concluded that this factor was met because “ ‘McDowell Road is a heavily traveled east-west street in the City of Phoenix.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-754(B) — 1 case
State v. Starr, 213 P.3d 214 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “¶ 13 We turn now to Defendant’s argument that the traffic stop was unlawful because he did not violate any provision of A.R.S. § 28-754 (2004). That section addresses “turning movements and required signals.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-754(C) — 1 case
Randall v. Alvarado-Wells, 928 P.2d 732 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-754(a) — 1 case
Steed v. Cuevas, 540 P.2d 166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-754(c) — 1 case
Steed v. Cuevas, 540 P.2d 166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.