Signaling on a roundabout may bode well for traffic flow. It might also ensure a safer travel through the intersection.

But it’s not legally required in Indiana.

So says the Indiana Court of Appeals, which oddly enough needed to weigh in on the lawful navigation of roundabouts in the state.

The exploration of roundabout traffic law in the state of Indiana began with a traffic stop in Warsaw. A motorist was driving on a roundabout when he exited without signaling, according to court documents. A police officer stopped him for failing to signal, then discovered drug paraphernalia in his vehicle. The motorist was charged with felony drug possession.

IndyStar North newsletter:News, things to do and more from Hamilton County, right to your inbox.

Although the case focused on evidence suppression, it wound up asking a relevant question absent from state law: Must drivers signal when exiting a roundabout?

“In short,” the appeals court said, “the answer is no.”

Roundabout exit leads to traffic stop

Not everyone agrees.

“Why would a roundabout turn be different than any other turn,” asks Carmel Mayor James Brainard, leader of the so-called “roundabout capital” of the country. “It just doesn't make logical sense that because it’s a circle (as) opposed to a square, you would treat it differently.”

Brainard, who read the court’s decision, told IndyStar signaling on a roundabout should eventually be required and result in tickets for people who fail to do so.

He has long touted roundabouts as being safer and cheaper than intersections with traffic lights and stop signs. Since 1998, the city has built 128 roundabouts at a cost of $500,000 to $3 million apiece.

Carmel roundabouts:Are the intersections as safe as officials claim?

There are, of course, roundabouts all throughout the state. That includes Kosciusko County, where the Warsaw motorist was driving through a three-exit roundabout on Sept. 21, 2018.

As he exited westbound, according to the appeals court opinion, a Warsaw police officer noticed that the motorist failed to signal.

The officer believed the motorist committed a traffic infraction because the officer had "always (been) instructed that you needed to signal for exiting a roundabout,” the court said.

The motorist seemed nervous to the officer, the appeals court said. The officer searched the vehicle and found a digital scale that tested positive for methamphetamine and other objects, according to court documents.

Facing several drug-related charges and the possibility of up to two-and-a-half years in prison if convicted, the motorist sought to suppress the evidence seized during the traffic stop. He argued that because he didn’t violate Indiana statute regarding turn signals, the traffic stop was unlawful.

The state argued that leaving a roundabout is deviating from the normal flow of traffic and requires using a turn signal.

The state also argued that even if the officer misinterpreted Indiana's traffic statute, a stop can still be upheld if the mistake was reasonable.

A trial court sided with the motorist, finding that the evidence should be suppressed.

No roundabout law

Indiana law on signaling requires drivers turning right or left to signal no less than the last 200 feet traveled by a vehicle before turning or changing lanes, according to state code.

The Indiana Department of Transportation instructs drivers to signal when exiting roundabouts.

But in concurring with the trial court, the appeals court says in its Feb. 28 decision that while roundabouts aren’t specifically excluded from the statute, the intersections were not widespread in Indiana at the time the laws were established.

“Any assumption,” the court said, “that the signaling statute specifically applies to roundabouts fails to withstand scrutiny when the reality and logistics of roundabouts are considered.”

Simply put, the way roundabouts are constructed, the court said, makes it virtually impossible to signal at the distance the law requires.

For the appeals court, the notion of requiring signaling on roundabouts raised more questions than answers,as addressed in its decision:

Based upon our current turn signal law, how and when would a motorist be required to signal his exit from a roundabout?

Must a motorist signal when exiting the roundabout intersection, even when he has traveled straight through and is proceeding in the same direction on the same street upon which he entered?

Would that be considered a "turn" or does a "turn" occur only when a motorist chooses to take an exit onto a different street?

Does exiting a roundabout, which often involves the driver simply veering to the right, involve a "turn," or does it depend upon the angle of the exit and the degree to which the driver must rotate his steering wheel?”

'A square peg in a roundabout hole'

Brainard doesn’t believe the situation is that complicated.

Typically at a roundabout, which moves traffic counterclockwise, drivers have a number of options, Brainard said.

Using the example of a four-way roundabout, Brainard said a driver can exit at the first street; go "straight through" and exit at the second street; go three-quarters around and leave at the third street; or do a complete U-Turn and go all the way around the intersection.

"And so," Brainard said, "another car in there knowing where (the other) car is going makes it safer. It's just common sense."

Both Brainard and the appeals court said the law should be updated. Mentioning Hamilton County, the court said that there are "numerous roundabout varieties and configurations."

"All of this convinced us," the court said, "that Indiana Code Section 9-21-8-25 is a square peg that cannot fit into the roundabout hole."

Brainard pointed to other states like Oregon, which specifically requires drivers on roundabouts to signal.

In a statement to IndyStar on Thursday, the attorney general's office said it doesn't fully agree with the appeals court's opinion and is still determining what its next steps will be.

IndyStar reporter John Tuohy contributed to this report.

Contact IndyStar reporter Crystal Hill at 317-444-6094 or cnhill@gannett.com. Follow her on Twitter: @crysnhill.