Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 257 / Act 300 of 1949
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.611 (2026)

Traffic control devices; obedience required; exception; avoiding obedience by driving on public or private property; violation as civil infraction.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE


Act 300 of 1949


257.611 Traffic control devices; obedience required; exception; avoiding obedience by driving on public or private property; violation as civil infraction.

Sec. 611.

    (1) The driver of a vehicle or operator of a streetcar shall not disobey the instructions of a traffic control device placed in accordance with this chapter unless at the time otherwise directed by a police officer.

    (2) The driver of a vehicle shall not, for the purpose of avoiding obedience to a traffic control device placed in accordance with this chapter, drive upon or through private property, or upon or through public property which is not a street or highway.

    (3) A person who violates this section is responsible for a civil infraction.

History: 1949, Act 300, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949 ;-- Am. 1976, Act 75, Imd. Eff. Apr. 11, 1976 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 510, Eff. Aug. 1, 1979

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1959–2016 · leading case: Yono v. Dep't of Transp., 885 N.W.2d 445 (Mich. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Yono v. Dep't of Transp., 885 N.W.2d 445 (Mich. 2016). · cites it 4× “” MCL 257.611(1) gives those traffic-control devices legal effect for enforcing the Department’s intended design of a highway by providing that “[t]he driver of a vehicle .”
United States v. Kenneth Eugene Evans, 574 F.2d 352 (6th Cir. 1978). · cites it 2× “Two citations relied upon violations of the State of Michigan’s Motor Vehicle Code: failing to obey a stop sign in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.611 (1), and driving through private property to avoid a traffic control device, contrary to Mich.”
Markis v. City of Grosse Pointe Park, 448 N.W.2d 352 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). “MCL 257.611; MSA 9.2311. Just prior to the traffic stop, Officer Konefeke observed Conway perform a "rolling stop” at an intersection free of traffic, against a red light, which led him to believe that Conway was aware of the red light but was in a hurry to arrive at her…”
Stillwell v. Grubaugh, 98 N.W.2d 490 (Mich. 1959). · cites it 2× “*346 Plaintiffs alleged that defendant was guilty of negligence which was the proximate cause of plaintiff Stillwell's damages; that plaintiff Stillwell was free from contributory negligence; and that the negligence of the defendant was a violation of CLS 1956, § 257.611 (Stat…”
Krzeminski v. Chuslo, 144 N.W.2d 817 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “CLS 1961, § 257.611 (Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 9.2311). Both the ordinance and statute, supra, were adopted to protect the general public and prevent personal injuries to private individuals.”
Cahill v. Fifteenth Dist. Judge, 245 N.W.2d 381 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). “No driver of a vehicle shall disobey the instructions of any traffic control device placed in accordance with provisions of this Chapter unless at a time otherwise directed by a Police Officer.”
Mentel v. Monroe Pub. Schs., 209 N.W.2d 506 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). “” MCLA 257.611; MSA 9.2311. 4 The statutory definition is: " 'Traffic control devices’ means all signs, signals, markings, and devices not inconsistent with this act placed or erected by authority of a public body or official having jurisdiction, for the purpose of regulating,…”
People of Michigan v. Steven Randall Ray (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “On April 16, 2013, less than two weeks later and after the tracking device was installed, defendant was stopped as he was driving his vehicle in the direction of the Madison Heights Meijer.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.611(1) — 2 cases
Yono v. Dep't of Transp., 885 N.W.2d 445 (Mich. 2016). “” MCL 257.611(1) gives those traffic-control devices legal effect for enforcing the Department’s intended design of a highway by providing that “[t]he driver of a vehicle .”
People of Michigan v. Steven Randall Ray (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “On April 16, 2013, less than two weeks later and after the tracking device was installed, defendant was stopped as he was driving his vehicle in the direction of the Madison Heights Meijer.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.611(2) — 1 case
United States v. Kenneth Eugene Evans, 574 F.2d 352 (6th Cir. 1978). “Two citations relied upon violations of the State of Michigan’s Motor Vehicle Code: failing to obey a stop sign in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.611 (1), and driving through private property to avoid a traffic control device, contrary to Mich.”
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.