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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.709

Windshields and windows; prohibitions; rearview mirrors; exceptions; windshield wipers; exemption; hot air windshield defroster or electrically heated windshield or other device; windshield device; definitions.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE


Act 300 of 1949


257.709 Windshields and windows; prohibitions; rearview mirrors; exceptions; windshield wipers; exemption; hot air windshield defroster or electrically heated windshield or other device; windshield device; definitions.

Sec. 709.

    (1) A person shall not operate a motor vehicle with any of the following:

    (a) A sign, poster, nontransparent material, window application, reflective film, or nonreflective film upon or in the front windshield, the side windows immediately adjacent to the driver or front passenger, or the sidewings adjacent to and forward of the driver or front passenger, except that a tinted film may be used along the top edge of the windshield and the side windows or sidewings immediately adjacent to the driver or front passenger if the material does not extend more than 4 inches from the top of the windshield, or lower than the shade band, whichever is closer to the top of the windshield.

    (b) A rear window or side window to the rear of the driver composed of, covered by, or treated with a material that creates a total solar reflectance of 35% or more in the visible light range, including a silver or gold reflective film.

    (c) An object that obstructs the vision of the driver of the vehicle, except as authorized by law.

    (2) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if driver visibility through the rear window is obstructed, unless the vehicle is equipped with 2 rearview mirrors, 1 on each side, adjusted so that the operator has a clear view of the highway behind the vehicle.

    (3) This section does not apply to any of the following:

    (a) The use of draperies, louvers, or other special window treatments, except those specifically designated in this section, on the rear window, or a side window to the rear of the driver if the vehicle is equipped with 2 outside rearview mirrors, 1 on each side, adjusted so that the driver has a clear view of the highway behind the vehicle.

    (b) The use of a nonreflective, smoked or tinted glass, nonreflective film, perforated window screen, or other decorative window application on the rear window or a side window to the rear of the driver.

    (c) The placement of a necessary certificate or sticker that does not obstruct the driver's clear view of the roadway or an intersecting roadway.

    (d) A vehicle registered in another state, territory, commonwealth of the United States, or another country or province.

    (e) A special window treatment or application determined necessary by a physician or optometrist, for the protection of a person who is light sensitive or photosensitive, if the owner or operator of a motor vehicle has in possession a letter signed by a physician or optometrist, indicating that the special window treatment or application is a medical necessity. However, the special window treatment or application shall not interfere with or obstruct the driver's clear vision of the highway or an intersecting highway.

    (4) Except as provided in subsection (5), the windshield on each motor vehicle shall be equipped with a device for cleaning rain, snow, or other moisture from the windshield, which device shall be so constructed as to be controlled or operated by the driver of the vehicle. A vehicle licensed as an historical vehicle is exempt from this subsection if the vehicle was not originally equipped with such a device. Each windshield wiper upon a motor vehicle shall be maintained in good working order.

    (5) A truck with a gross weight over 10,000 pounds, a truck tractor, a bus, or a truck regardless of weight carrying hazardous materials on which a placard is required to be posted pursuant to 49 CFR parts 100 to 199 having a windshield shall be equipped with not less than 2 automatically operating windshield wiper blades, 1 on each side of the centerline of the windshield, for cleaning rain, snow, or other moisture from the windshield. The blades shall be in such condition as to provide clear vision for the driver, unless 1 blade is so arranged as to clean an area of the windshield extending to within 1 inch of the limit of vision through the windshield at each side. However, in driveaway-towaway operations, this subsection applies only to the operated vehicle. In addition, 1 windshield wiper blade suffices under this subsection when the driven vehicle in a driveaway-towaway operation constitutes part or all of the property being transported and has no provision for 2 blades. A truck and truck tractor, manufactured after June 30, 1953, that depends upon vacuum to operate the windshield wipers, shall be so constructed that the operation of the wipers is not materially impaired by change in the intake manifold pressure.

    (6) A truck with a gross weight over 10,000 pounds, a truck tractor, a bus, or a truck regardless of weight carrying hazardous materials on which a placard is required to be posted under 49 CFR parts 100 to 199 shall not be operated on the highways at any time unless it is equipped with a hot air windshield defroster or an electrically heated windshield or other device to heat and maintain the windshield in operable condition at all times.

    (7) As used in this section:

    (a) "Physician" means that term as defined in section 17001 or 17501 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.17001 and 333.17501.

    (b) "Optometrist" means that term as defined in section 17401 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.17401.

History: 1949, Act 300, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949 ;-- Am. 1951, Act 142, Eff. Sept. 28, 1951 ;-- Am. 1954, Act 167, Eff. Aug. 13, 1954 ;-- Am. 1955, Act 174, Eff. Oct. 14, 1955 ;-- Am. 1958, Act 23, Eff. Sept. 13, 1958 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 55, Imd. Eff. Mar. 10, 1978 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 220, Eff. Mar. 31, 1981 ;-- Am. 1988, Act 383, Eff. Apr. 1, 1989 ;-- Am. 1988, Act 470, Eff. Apr. 1, 1989 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 127, Imd. Eff. May 30, 2000 ;-- Am. 2010, Act 258, Imd. Eff. Dec. 14, 2010

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: People v. Dillon
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Dillon (2012) michctapp · cites it 7× “7403(2)(a)(c), on the basis of evidence seized during a traffic stop conducted for a violation of MCL 257.709. The circuit court suppressed the evidence from the search, held MCL 257.”
People v. Davis (2002) michctapp · cites it 3× “* 2 At that time, Officer Hopkins, who was parked in the median between the eastbound and westbound lanes of 1-94, noticed that defendant’s view was obstructed by objects hanging from the rearview mirror in violation of MCL 257.709(l)(c). 3 Officer Hopkins began to follow…”
People v. Pitts (1997) michctapp · cites it 9× “Defendant appeals by leave granted a circuit court order denying his motion for reversal of the judgment of the district court, holding him responsible for a violation of MCL 257.709; MSA 9.2409 for having tinted film on the front side windows of his car.”
Alan Hoover v. Timothy Walsh (2012) ca6 · cites it 3× “” See Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.709 (l)(c). This version of the law was not in effect at the time Mr.”
United States v. Katrina Lyons (2012) ca6 “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.709 . As a result, the government’s position on appeal turns upon whether the DEA possessed reasonable suspicion to request the stop and whether the troopers were permitted to act upon the DEA’s request.”
Hazel v. Quinn (2013) mied · cites it 3× “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.709 (2). Because the plaintiffs Tracer was equipped with side view mirrors that satisfied the statute, the prosecutor concluded that there was no violation.”
People v. Mott (2009) illappct “The third approach criminalizes the placement of any object between the driver and the windshield.”
People v. Lewis (2002) michctapp “3 Apparently, Officer Phelps believed that the garter hanging from the rearview mirror obstructed the driver’s view in violation of MCL 257.709(l)(c). 4 The record is unclear regarding whether Martin was informed specifically by Phelps, was informed by Rodriguez, or was informed…”
People v. Fisher (2000) mich · cites it 4× “That would be MCLA 257.709? A. Yes. Q. And it is your understanding of that section—I guess we'd be talking particularly about (1)(c) as it concerns an ornament—that the motor vehicle operator is not able to hang anything whatsoever from their rearview mirror? A.”
Gordon v. State (2005) fladistctapp “, Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.709 (1)(c) (2004); Minn.”
Reed v. Detroit, City of (2019) mied · cites it 8× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.709 (1). Plaintiff raises several arguments to undermine the officers’ reports and testimony that they reasonably believed the Charger was not in compliance with the statute, focusing mainly on whether the windows were tinted beyond thirty-five percent.”
People v. Davis (2001) michctapp · cites it 3× “Since both defendant and his mother testified that there was at least one air freshener hanging from the rearview mirror, the record supports the conclusion that defendant may have been in violation of MCL 257.709(1)(c). Although defendant denied it, we also note that Officer…”
Show all 24 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.709(1) — 1 case
People v. Dillon (2012) michctapp “7403(2)(a)(c), on the basis of evidence seized during a traffic stop conducted for a violation of MCL 257.709. The circuit court suppressed the evidence from the search, held MCL 257.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.709(1)(a) — 7 cases
People v. Pitts (1997) michctapp “Defendant appeals by leave granted a circuit court order denying his motion for reversal of the judgment of the district court, holding him responsible for a violation of MCL 257.709; MSA 9.2409 for having tinted film on the front side windows of his car.”
People of Michigan v. Christopher Jeffrey Lewis (2014) michctapp
People of Michigan v. Steven Randall Ray (2016) michctapp
People of Michigan v. Keith Edward Nadeau (2018) michctapp
People of Michigan v. Keith Edward Nadeau (2018) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.709(1)(c) — 2 cases
People v. Fisher (2000) mich “That would be MCLA 257.709? A. Yes. Q. And it is your understanding of that section—I guess we'd be talking particularly about (1)(c) as it concerns an ornament—that the motor vehicle operator is not able to hang anything whatsoever from their rearview mirror? A.”
People v. Davis (2001) michctapp “Since both defendant and his mother testified that there was at least one air freshener hanging from the rearview mirror, the record supports the conclusion that defendant may have been in violation of MCL 257.709(1)(c). Although defendant denied it, we also note that Officer…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.709(2) — 1 case
Hazel v. Quinn (2013) mied “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.709 (2). Because the plaintiffs Tracer was equipped with side view mirrors that satisfied the statute, the prosecutor concluded that there was no violation.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.709(l)(c) — 4 cases
People v. Davis (2002) michctapp “* 2 At that time, Officer Hopkins, who was parked in the median between the eastbound and westbound lanes of 1-94, noticed that defendant’s view was obstructed by objects hanging from the rearview mirror in violation of MCL 257.709(l)(c). 3 Officer Hopkins began to follow…”
People v. Dillon (2012) michctapp “7403(2)(a)(c), on the basis of evidence seized during a traffic stop conducted for a violation of MCL 257.709. The circuit court suppressed the evidence from the search, held MCL 257.”
People v. Lewis (2002) michctapp “3 Apparently, Officer Phelps believed that the garter hanging from the rearview mirror obstructed the driver’s view in violation of MCL 257.709(l)(c). 4 The record is unclear regarding whether Martin was informed specifically by Phelps, was informed by Rodriguez, or was informed…”
People v. Davis (2001) michctapp “Since both defendant and his mother testified that there was at least one air freshener hanging from the rearview mirror, the record supports the conclusion that defendant may have been in violation of MCL 257.709(1)(c). Although defendant denied it, we also note that Officer…”
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.