Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.71 (2026)

Prohibition against driving upon closed highway

✓ 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:

October 29, 2018

Latest Legislation:

House Bill 95 - 132nd General Assembly

PDF:

Download Authenticated PDF

(A) No person shall drive upon, along, or across a street or highway, or any part of a street or highway that has been closed in the process of its construction, reconstruction, or repair, and posted with appropriate signs by the authority having jurisdiction to close such highway.

(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.

If the offender commits the offense while distracted and the distracting activity is a contributing factor to the commission of the offense, the offender is subject to the additional fine established under section 4511.991 of the Revised Code.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1957–2023 · leading case: Stonerock v. Miller Bros. Paving, 594 N.E.2d 94 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1991).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Stonerock v. Miller Bros. Paving, 594 N.E.2d 94 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1991). · cites it 2× “Finally, defendant contends that the trial court should have charged the jury that Tong was traveling at a lawful speed, below the posted limit, rather than instructing the jury that a speed less than fifty-five m.p.h. may be unreasonable and improper.”

Sidney v. Alter, 2014-Ohio-3374. · cites it 9× “Specifically, Alter argues that the City failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt an essential element of Sidney Traffic Code 331.24—namely, that the closed street was “posted with appropriate signs.”

Dibert v. Ross Pattern & Foundry Dev. Co., 152 N.E.2d 369 (Ohio Ct. App. 1957). · cites it 2× “” Plaintiff contends this exception applies only when a portion of a roadway is closed by public authority, as for example under the provisions of Section 6307-69, General Code (Section 4511.71, Revised Code). We are disposed to agree with plaintiff that the expression means…”

State v. Nation, 2023-Ohio-106. “32(A); and driving upon a closed highway in violation of R.C. 4511.71(A). {¶ 7} Appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence on February 5, 2021 and asserted that there was no lawful cause to stop or detain him and that there was no probable cause to arrest him without a…”

State v. Schaefer, 2019-Ohio-571. “21 and driving on a closed highway in violation of R.C. 4511.71. {¶ 2} Although Schaefer’s appellate brief lacks assignments of error, he appears to challenge the legal sufficiency or manifest weight of the evidence to sustain his convictions.”

Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.71(A): 2 cases

State v. Nation, 2023-Ohio-106. “32(A); and driving upon a closed highway in violation of R.C. 4511.71(A). {¶ 7} Appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence on February 5, 2021 and asserted that there was no lawful cause to stop or detain him and that there was no probable cause to arrest him without a…”

Sidney v. Alter, 2014-Ohio-3374. “Specifically, Alter argues that the City failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt an essential element of Sidney Traffic Code 331.24—namely, that the closed street was “posted with appropriate signs.”

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.