Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 4511
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.16 (2026)

Unauthorized sign or signal resembling a traffic control device

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
January 1, 2004
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 123 - 124th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) No person shall place, maintain, or display upon or in view of any highway any unauthorized sign, signal, marking, or device which purports to be, is an imitation of, or resembles a traffic control device or railroad sign or signal, or which attempts to direct the movement of traffic or hides from view or interferes with the effectiveness of any traffic control device or any railroad sign or signal, and no person shall place or maintain, nor shall any public authority permit, upon any highway any traffic sign or signal bearing thereon any commercial advertising. This section does not prohibit either the erection upon private property adjacent to highways of signs giving useful directional information and of a type that cannot be mistaken for traffic control devices or the erection upon private property of traffic control devices by the owner of real property in accordance with sections 4511.211 and 4511.432 of the Revised Code.

Every such prohibited sign, signal, marking, or device is a public nuisance, and the authority having jurisdiction over the highway may remove it or cause it to be removed.

(B) Except as otherwise provided in this division, whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor. If, within one year of the offense, the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to one predicate motor vehicle or traffic offense, whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. If, within one year of the offense, the offender previously has been convicted of two or more predicate motor vehicle or traffic offenses, whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1959–1994 · leading case: Carpenter v. Consol. Rail Corp., 69 Ohio St. 3d 259 (1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Carpenter v. Consol. Rail Corp., 69 Ohio St. 3d 259 (1994). · cites it 3× “Conrail contends that under R.C. 4511.16, railroads are prohibited from installing traffic control devices and that the sole authority for installation is now vested in public authorities under R.”
State v. Grubb, 611 N.E.2d 516 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1993). “See R.C. 4511.16. The trial court found the sign not to be in compliance with the manual adopted pursuant to R.”
Dollar Sav. & Trust Co. v. City of Youngstown, 250 N.E.2d 883 (Ohio Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 4× “We are further buttressed in our conclusion by the provisions of Section 4511.16, Revised Code, which indicate the legislative intent as to markings upon a highway.”
City of Akron v. Cook, 588 N.E.2d 157 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1990). “R.C. 4511.16. Accordingly, we hold that when it has been established that a traffic control device exists, a permissive inference arises that such device was placed pursuant to lawful authority.”
State v. Myers, 164 N.E.2d 585 (Ohio Ct. App. 1959). “The defendant was charged with violating §4511.16 R. C., which provides: “No person shall unlawfully and unintentionally kill another while violating any iaw of this state applying to the use or regulation of traffic.”
Carpenter v. Consol. Rail Corp., 1994 Ohio 333 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 3× “Therefore, according to the mandates of Easterwood, federal preemption had not yet arisen. Alternatively, Conrail argues that even if federal law has not preempted the field, Conrail is still not liable because the state has assumed sole responsibility for crossing safety…”
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.