MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE
Act 300 of 1949
257.676b Interference with normal flow of vehicular, streetcar, or pedestrian traffic prohibited; public utility facilities; solicitation of contributions on behalf of charitable or civic organization; violation as civil infraction; local regulations; "charitable or civic organization" defined.
Sec. 676b.
(1) Subject to subsection (2), a person, without authority, shall not block, obstruct, impede, or otherwise interfere with the normal flow of vehicular, streetcar, or pedestrian traffic upon a public street or highway in this state, by means of a barricade, object, or device, or with his or her person. This section does not apply to persons maintaining, rearranging, or constructing public utility or streetcar facilities in or adjacent to a street or highway.
(2) Subsection (1) and any provision of the Michigan Administrative Code that prohibits a person from standing in a roadway other than a limited access highway for the purpose of soliciting a ride, employment, or business from the occupant of any vehicle do not apply to a person who is soliciting contributions on behalf of a charitable or civic organization during daylight hours, if all of the following are satisfied:
(a) The charitable or civic organization complies with applicable local government regulations. A local government may enact or enforce regulations restricting, but not prohibiting, the activity described in this subsection.
(b) The charitable or civic organization maintains at least $500,000.00 in liability insurance.
(c) The person is 18 years of age or older.
(d) The person is wearing high-visibility safety apparel that meets current American standards promulgated by the International Safety Equipment Association.
(e) The portion of the roadway upon which the solicitation occurs is not a work zone and is within an intersection where traffic control devices are present.
(f) The solicitation does not block, delay, or otherwise interfere with the movement of a streetcar on a streetcar track.
(3) A local government or road authority that has jurisdiction over a roadway upon which solicitation occurs as described in subsection (2) is not liable for any claim for damages arising out of the use of the roadway as described in subsection (2).
(4) A person who violates this section is responsible for a civil infraction.
(5) A local government that, on July 27, 2017, has enacted or is enforcing regulations that are prohibited under subsection (2)(a) shall bring those regulations into compliance with subsection (2)(a) no later than September 25, 2017.
(6) As used in this section, "charitable or civic organization" means a nonprofit organization that is qualified under section 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), 501(c)(7), 501(c)(8), or 501(c)(10) of the internal revenue code of 1986, 26 USC 501, or a veterans' organization that has tax-exempt status under the internal revenue code.
History: Add. 1968, Act 151, Eff. Nov. 15, 1968 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 510, Eff. Aug. 1, 1979 ;-- Am. 2017, Act 112, Imd. Eff. July 27, 2017 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 75, Imd. Eff. Mar. 19, 2018 ;-- Am. 2021, Act 43, Imd. Eff. July 1, 2021
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
18
cases (
11 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case:
Poppen v. Tovey, 664 N.W.2d 269 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
Poppen v. Tovey, 664 N.W.2d 269 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 5× “, alleging that Tovey was grossly negligent in (1) failing to alert approaching traffic that he had blocked the curb lane by marking the area behind the truck with warning devices, and (2) blocking, impeding, obstructing, or otherwise interfering with the normal flow of traffic…”
United States v. Hartwell, 67 F. Supp. 2d 784 (E.D. Mich. 1999).
· cites it 5× “§ 257.676b (impeding traffic) and M.C.L. § 257.”
People of Michigan v. David Allan Lucynski (Mich. 2022).
· cites it 67× “Robinson testified at the preliminary examination that he believed that the vehicles were impeding traffic in violation of MCL 257.676b, even though there were no other vehicles on the road at the time.”
People of Michigan v. David Allan Lucynski (Mich. 2022).
· cites it 67× “Robinson testified at the preliminary examination that he believed that the vehicles were impeding traffic in violation of MCL 257.676b, even though there were no other vehicles on the road at the time.”
People of Michigan v. David Allan Lucynski (Mich. 2022).
· cites it 67× “Robinson testified at the preliminary examination that he believed that the vehicles were impeding traffic in violation of MCL 257.676b, even though there were no other vehicles on the road at the time.”
Thomason v. Jernigan, 770 F. Supp. 1195 (E.D. Mich. 1991).
“§ 257.676b] (Callaghan 1981); harass Planned Parenthood employees, Mich.”
Gould v. Atwell, 205 Mich. App. 154 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 2× “Similarly, the plaintiffs’ counsel further argued that a rebuttable presumption of negligence existed because the defendants violated MCL 257.676b; MSA 9.2376(2). The district court stated that the defendants were in a no-win situation, reasoning that if the defendants had not…”
O People of Michigan v. David Allan Lucynski (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 5× “At the close of proofs, the People argued that bindover of the OWI charge was appropriate because there was sufficient cause for Deputy Robinson to conduct the traffic stop under MCL 257.676b(1).[] Lucynski opposed bindover on the OWI charge, arguing that there was “an issue in…”
Kn v. Amy Sue Just. (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 4× “Plaintiff also argued that JMAC had a statutory duty to avoid interfering with traffic under MCL 257.676b, as well as a duty to avoid obstructing the sidewalk pursuant to Charter Township of Cascade, Ordinance No.”
People of Michigan v. Treavion Lawrence-Kenyatta Person (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 3× “While Officer Lomakoski used the common parlance of “jaywalking” to describe defendant’s alleged infraction, the prosecution argued before the trial court that Officer Lomakoski actually witnessed a violation of MCL 257.676b(1), which states in relevant part, “a person, without…”
20231207_C364223_36_364223.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 3× “613, it also found that he violated MCL 257.676b, which prohibits persons from “block[ing], obstruct[ing], imped[ing], or otherwise interfer[ing] with the normal flow of vehicular .”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.676b(1) — 8 cases
People of Michigan v. David Allan Lucynski (Mich. 2022).
“Robinson testified at the preliminary examination that he believed that the vehicles were impeding traffic in violation of MCL 257.676b, even though there were no other vehicles on the road at the time.”
People of Michigan v. David Allan Lucynski (Mich. 2022).
“Robinson testified at the preliminary examination that he believed that the vehicles were impeding traffic in violation of MCL 257.676b, even though there were no other vehicles on the road at the time.”
People of Michigan v. David Allan Lucynski (Mich. 2022).
“Robinson testified at the preliminary examination that he believed that the vehicles were impeding traffic in violation of MCL 257.676b, even though there were no other vehicles on the road at the time.”
O People of Michigan v. David Allan Lucynski (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
“At the close of proofs, the People argued that bindover of the OWI charge was appropriate because there was sufficient cause for Deputy Robinson to conduct the traffic stop under MCL 257.676b(1).[] Lucynski opposed bindover on the OWI charge, arguing that there was “an issue in…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.676b(2) — 3 cases
People of Michigan v. David Allan Lucynski (Mich. 2022).
“Robinson testified at the preliminary examination that he believed that the vehicles were impeding traffic in violation of MCL 257.676b, even though there were no other vehicles on the road at the time.”
People of Michigan v. David Allan Lucynski (Mich. 2022).
“Robinson testified at the preliminary examination that he believed that the vehicles were impeding traffic in violation of MCL 257.676b, even though there were no other vehicles on the road at the time.”
People of Michigan v. David Allan Lucynski (Mich. 2022).
“Robinson testified at the preliminary examination that he believed that the vehicles were impeding traffic in violation of MCL 257.676b, even though there were no other vehicles on the road at the time.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.676b(4) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Treavion Lawrence-Kenyatta Person (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
“While Officer Lomakoski used the common parlance of “jaywalking” to describe defendant’s alleged infraction, the prosecution argued before the trial court that Officer Lomakoski actually witnessed a violation of MCL 257.676b(1), which states in relevant part, “a person, without…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.676b(l) — 1 case
Poppen v. Tovey, 664 N.W.2d 269 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
“, alleging that Tovey was grossly negligent in (1) failing to alert approaching traffic that he had blocked the curb lane by marking the area behind the truck with warning devices, and (2) blocking, impeding, obstructing, or otherwise interfering with the normal flow of traffic…”
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.