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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.624 (2026)

Report not available for use in court action; purpose of report; authorization and purpose of scientific studies and research; use of data; disclosures; liability; penalty.

✓ 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


257.624 Report not available for use in court action; purpose of report; authorization and purpose of scientific studies and research; use of data; disclosures; liability; penalty.

Sec. 624.

    (1) A report required by this chapter shall not be available for use in a court action, but a report shall be for the purpose of furnishing statistical information regarding the number and cause of accidents.

    (2) The office of highway safety planning may authorize scientific studies and research for the reduction of death, injury, and property losses. All information, records of interviews, written reports, statements, notes, memoranda, or other data collected pursuant to the scientific studies and research conducted by the state, or by other persons, agencies, or organizations authorized by the office of highway safety planning shall be used solely for the purpose of medical or scientific research and shall not disclose the name or identity of a person unless the person authorizes, in writing, the use of his or her name or identity. If a subject of the research study is deceased, the executor or heir of the deceased person may authorize, in writing, the disclosure of the deceased's name or identity. The furnishing of information to the office of highway safety planning or to a representative of an authorized study or research project shall not subject a person, hospital, sanitarium, rest home, nursing home, or other person or agency furnishing the information to any action for damages or other relief. The information, records, reports, statements, notes, memoranda, or other data shall not be admissible as evidence in a court or before any other tribunal, board, agency, or person. A person participating in an authorized study or research project shall not disclose, directly or indirectly, the information so obtained except in strict conformity with the research project.

    (3) A person who discloses information in violation of subsection (2) is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not less than $50.00.

History: 1949, Act 300, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 26, Imd. Eff. Mar. 7, 1980

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case: Solomon v. Shuell, 457 N.W.2d 669 (Mich. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Solomon v. Shuell, 457 N.W.2d 669 (Mich. 1990). · cites it 8× “Records, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth (A) the activities of the office or agency, or (B) matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to report, excluding, however,…”
People v. Feezel, 783 N.W.2d 67 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 2× “Moreover, although defendant had trace amounts of THC in his system, the amount of THC was below the threshold of the Michigan State Police's reporting protocol, and the prosecution only charged defendant with having 11-carboxy-THC in his system.”
People v. Jambor, 729 N.W.2d 569 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “Records, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth (A) the activities of the office or agency, or (B) matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to report, excluding, however,…”
Moncrief v. City of Detroit, 247 N.W.2d 783 (Mich. 1976). · cites it 4× “2322 and MCLA 257.624; MSA 9.2324 have no application in this case.”
Dawn Green v. City of Southfield, Mich., 925 F.3d 281 (6th Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.624 (1). Green was hospitalized for several days.”
People v. Stacy, 484 N.W.2d 675 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “Records, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth (A) the activities of the office or agency, or (B) matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to report, excluding, however,…”
Wallace v. Skrzycki, 61 N.W.2d 106 (Mich. 1953). · cites it 6× “CL 1948, § 257.624 (Stat Ann 1952 Rev § 9.2324). Without regard to who made the report, as to refreshing recollection from it, the report is not admissible, nor available to refresh recollection.”
Bradbury v. Ford Motor Co., 358 N.W.2d 550 (Mich. 1984). · cites it 2× “Records, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth (A) the activities of the office or agency, or (B) matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to report, excluding, however,…”
Bradbury v. Ford Motor Co., 333 N.W.2d 214 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “Records, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth (A) the activities of the office or agency, or (B) matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to report, excluding, however,…”
In Re Freiburger, 395 N.W.2d 300 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “ments, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth (A) the activities of the office or agency, or (B) matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to report, excluding, however, in criminal cases…”
Jaxon v. City of Detroit, 151 N.W.2d 813 (Mich. 1967). · cites it 2× “[5] "The reports required by this chapter shall not be available for use in any court action, but it shall be for the purpose of furnishing statistical information as to the number and cause of accidents.”
Slayton v. Michigan Host, Inc, 376 N.W.2d 664 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). “ments, or data compliations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth (A) the activities of the office or agency, or (B) matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to report, excluding, however, in criminal cases…”
Hewitt v. Grand Trunk W. R.R., 333 N.W.2d 264 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “ments, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth (A) the activities of the office or agency, or (B) matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to report, excluding, however, in criminal cases…”
People v. Schmidt, 492 N.W.2d 509 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “People v Morgan, 24 Mich App 604, 606 ; 180 NW2d 508 (1970); MCL 257.624(1); MSA 9.2324(1). The question presented by this case is whether, in a prosecution for a violation of this statute with regard to an accident involving property damage only, the prosecutor must prove the…”
Attorney Gen. v. John A. Biewer Co., 363 N.W.2d 712 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). “ments, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth (A) the activities of the office or agency, or (B) matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to report, excluding, however, in criminal cases…”
United States v. Hartwell, 67 F. Supp. 2d 784 (E.D. Mich. 1999). “§ 257.624(a). 2 The government directs the Court’s attention to U.”
People v. Shipp, 437 N.W.2d 385 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). “ments, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth (A) the activities of the office or agency, or (B) matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to report, excluding, however, in criminal cases…”
People v. Gilbert, 154 N.W.2d 800 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967). “” CLS 1961, § 257.624 (Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 9.2324) states: “The reports required by this chapter shall not be available for use in any court action, but it shall be for the purpose of furnishing statistical information as to the number and cause of accidents.”
Derrick v. Blazers, 93 N.W.2d 909 (Mich. 1959). “Ross, 195 Okla 89 ( 154 P2d 939 ); CLS 1956, § 257.624 (Stat Ann 1952 Rev § 9.2324). On redirect examination, however, defendants had the right to have submitted to the jury those portions of the report about which plaintiff’s counsel had asked questions on cross-examination.”
Jakubiec v. Hasty, 59 N.W.2d 385 (Mich. 1953). “CL 1948, §257.624 (Stat Ann 1952 Rev §9.2324). In all actions commenced prior to September 23, 1949, of which this is one, CL 1948, § 256.”
Garmo v. Gen. Motors Corp., 207 N.W.2d 146 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). “He also stated he made no repairs to the brake system at all.”
Carlson v. Brunette, 63 N.W.2d 428 (Mich. 1954). “, and Carr, Bushnell, Sharpe, Reid, Dethmers, and Kelly, JJ.”
People v. Chandler, 255 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 3× “” MCLA 257.624; MSA 9.2324. Long ago the Supreme Court held that a police officer’s testimony regarding admissions by a driver were admissible in a civil case in spite of this statute.”
Conlon v. Dean, 165 N.W.2d 623 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968). “However, CL 1948, § 257.624 (Stat Ann 1960 Eev § 9.2324) which prohibits use in “any court action” of reports required by chapter 6 of the Motor Vehicle Code (PA 1949, No 300), was not amended.”
Duncan v. Strating, 99 N.W.2d 559 (Mich. 1959). “* PA 1949, No 300, § 624 (CLS 1956, § 257.624 [Stat Ann 1952 Rev § 9.2324]).”
People v. John F. Morgan, 180 N.W.2d 508 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). “3 CL 1948, § 257.624 (Stat Ann 1968 Eev § 9.2324).”
Webster v. Cent. Paving Co., 214 N.W.2d 707 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs contend that the report is inadmissible as hearsay evidence and that its use is also barred by the terms of MCLA 257.624; MSA 9.2324. 1 Defendants, however, argue that the report can be admitted under the hearsay exceptions of res gestae and business records.”
Albert Sprague v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins Co (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 8× “Plaintiff asserts that defendants use of the UD-10 6 in the subrogation proceeding was unlawful under the terms of MCL 257.624(1), which provides: “A report required by this chapter shall not be available for use in a court action, but a report shall be for the purpose of…”
Angell Cyars-Williams v. Thomas Skender (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 4× “Here, although Cyars-Williams’s husband did not read from the report, he testified as to the substance of the report, thereby placing part of the report before the jury in violation of MCL 257.624. By permitting the admission of evidence that is inadmissible as a matter of law,…”
Cynthia Marie Jones v. Talal Kamran (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 4× “ADMISSIBILITY OF TRAFFIC REPORT -4- Defendant Butt contends that the UD-10 traffic report is inadmissible under MCL 257.624 such that the trial court should not have considered it when ruling on his motion for summary disposition.”
Fischer v. United States (E.D. Mich. 2022). · cites it 3× “803 staff’s comment to 1978 adoption (“MRE 803(8) is identical with Federal Rule 803(8) except for the addition to clause (B) of the phrase ‘and subject to the limitations of MCL 257.624,’ and the deletion of the following language: ‘or (C) in civil actions and proceedings and…”
Bliss v. Kaplan, 119 N.W.2d 533 (Mich. 1963). “* CLS 1956, § 257.624 (Stat Ana 1960 Rev § 9.2324).”
Btw v. City of Detroit (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 2× “MCL 257.624(1) plainly states that such a report “shall not be available for use in a court action.”
People of Michigan v. Scott Duane Smith (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
People of Michigan v. Scott Duane Smith (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
in Re Day Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
in Re Day Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
People of Michigan v. Timothy Leon Terry (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
People of Michigan v. Timothy Leon Terry (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “ments, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth (A) the activities of the office or agency, or (B) matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to report, excluding, however, in criminal cases…”
Nathaniel E Chapman v. Zaki Jamil Alawi (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “MRE 803(8) sets forth the following exception to the hearsay rule: Records, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth (A) the activities of the office or agency, or (B) matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as…”
Nathaniel E Chapman v. Zaki Jamil Alawi (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “MRE 803(8) sets forth the following exception to the hearsay rule: Records, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth (A) the activities of the office or agency, or (B) matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as…”
People of Michigan v. Alejandro Delarosa (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “” MCL 257.624(a). Interpreting a previous version of this statute, we held that the statute did not “deny the defendant’s constitutional privilege against self-incrimination” because -5- it contained a statutory bar on use of the report in court.”
Meghan Marie Kuebler v. Paul Andrew Kuebler (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “ments, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth (A) the activities of the office or agency, or (B) matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to report, excluding, however, in criminal cases…”
Joel Markus Collins v. Marissa Ann Collins (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “ments, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth (A) the activities of the office or agency, or (B) matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to report, excluding, however, in criminal cases…”
Pennell (E.D. Mich. 2026). “625(1) and § 257.624(a), respectively, ECF No. 28-2 at PageID.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.624(1) — 5 cases
People v. Schmidt, 492 N.W.2d 509 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). “People v Morgan, 24 Mich App 604, 606 ; 180 NW2d 508 (1970); MCL 257.624(1); MSA 9.2324(1). The question presented by this case is whether, in a prosecution for a violation of this statute with regard to an accident involving property damage only, the prosecutor must prove the…”
Albert Sprague v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins Co (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “Plaintiff asserts that defendants use of the UD-10 6 in the subrogation proceeding was unlawful under the terms of MCL 257.624(1), which provides: “A report required by this chapter shall not be available for use in a court action, but a report shall be for the purpose of…”
Angell Cyars-Williams v. Thomas Skender (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “Here, although Cyars-Williams’s husband did not read from the report, he testified as to the substance of the report, thereby placing part of the report before the jury in violation of MCL 257.624. By permitting the admission of evidence that is inadmissible as a matter of law,…”
Cynthia Marie Jones v. Talal Kamran (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “ADMISSIBILITY OF TRAFFIC REPORT -4- Defendant Butt contends that the UD-10 traffic report is inadmissible under MCL 257.624 such that the trial court should not have considered it when ruling on his motion for summary disposition.”
Btw v. City of Detroit (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “MCL 257.624(1) plainly states that such a report “shall not be available for use in a court action.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.624(4) — 1 case
People v. Feezel, 783 N.W.2d 67 (Mich. 2010). “Moreover, although defendant had trace amounts of THC in his system, the amount of THC was below the threshold of the Michigan State Police's reporting protocol, and the prosecution only charged defendant with having 11-carboxy-THC in his system.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.624(a) — 3 cases
United States v. Hartwell, 67 F. Supp. 2d 784 (E.D. Mich. 1999). “§ 257.624(a). 2 The government directs the Court’s attention to U.”
People of Michigan v. Alejandro Delarosa (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “” MCL 257.624(a). Interpreting a previous version of this statute, we held that the statute did not “deny the defendant’s constitutional privilege against self-incrimination” because -5- it contained a statutory bar on use of the report in court.”
Pennell (E.D. Mich. 2026). “625(1) and § 257.624(a), respectively, ECF No. 28-2 at PageID.”
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.