(A) Every motor vehicle and motorcycle with an internal combustion engine shall at all times be equipped with a muffler which is in good working order and in constant operation to prevent excessive or unusual noise, and no person shall use a muffler cutout, by-pass, or similar device upon a motor vehicle on a highway. Every motorcycle muffler shall be equipped with baffle plates.
No person shall own, operate, or have in the person's possession any motor vehicle or motorcycle equipped with a device for producing excessive smoke or gas, or so equipped as to permit oil or any other chemical to flow into or upon the exhaust pipe or muffler of such vehicle, or equipped in any other way to produce or emit smoke or dangerous or annoying gases from any portion of such vehicle, other than the ordinary gases emitted by the exhaust of an internal combustion engine under normal operation.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1963–2026 · leading case: State v. Hunter, 783 N.E.2d 991 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 2002).
State v. Hunter, 783 N.E.2d 991 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 2002). · cites it 2ד” Although we affirm the trial court’s decision, we do so without concluding that Trooper Thompson stopped appellant based on the belief that appellant was violating R.C. 4513.22. The record clearly indicates that Trooper Thompson did not stop appellant because he believed…”
State v. Vanscoder, 637 N.E.2d 374 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1994). “2d at 581-582 , In contrast, a malfunctioning muffler is a violation of R.C. 4513.22 and a flickering taillight is at least arguably a violation of R.”
State v. Meadows, 2022-Ohio-287, 184 N.E.3d 168. “R.C. 4513.22 provides that “every motor vehicle * * * with an internal combustion engine shall at all times be equipped with a muffler which is in good working order and in constant operation to prevent excessive or unusual noise, * * *.”
City of Maple Heights v. Dickard, 508 N.E.2d 994 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1986). “15), excessive exhaust noise (R.C. 4513.22), driving while under suspension (R.”
State v. Melvan, 609 N.E.2d 595 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1992). “Excessive or unusual noise from a muffler or car exhaust system is prohibited by R.C. 4513.22. Therefore, a loud muffler provides reasonable suspicion to warrant the stop of a motor vehicle.”
State v. Harris, 440 N.E.2d 572 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1981). “251 and having an improper muffler in violation of R.C. 4513.22. Upon waiver of the jury demand, the cause came on for trial before the trial court on June 20, 1980; at which time, the drag racing charge was amended, by agreement, to one of reckless operation, R.”
State v. Shiley, 598 N.E.2d 775 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1991). “R.C. 4513.22 states that every motor vehicle shall have a muffler in good working order and in constant operation to prevent excessive or unusual noise.”
State v. Bennett, 2011-Ohio-4527. “21 and one count of having a defective exhaust system in violation of R.C. 4513.22(A). {¶6} On June 25, 2010, defendant-appellant filed a motion to suppress.”
State v. Parkhurst, 2016-Ohio-1018. “CRB 1400694), and Loud Exhaust, a minor misdemeanor in violation of R.C. 4513.22 (Case No. TRD 1401771). {¶3} On August 7, 2014, Parkhurst pled not guilty to both charges at the arraignment.”
State v. Cox, 193 N.E.2d 287 (Ohio Ct. App. 1963). · cites it 6דDefendant, appellant herein, was found guilty and fined $25 and costs in the Municipal Court of Piqua for violation of Section 4513.22, Revised Code. He was charged with “operating” a 1955 Ford automobile “when it was not equipped with a muffler that was in good working…”
State v. Rayburn, 2019-Ohio-1028. · cites it 6ד19(A)(1)(a), Emitting loud exhaust in violation of R.C. §4513.22, and Failure to Wear a Seatbelt in violation of R.”
State v. Endicott, 2026-Ohio-2215. · cites it 5דCompare R.C. 4513.22 with Bridgeport Cod.Ord. 438.”
State v. Bennett, 2011-Ohio-4527. “21 and one count of having a defective exhaust system in violation of R.C. 4513.22(A). {¶6} On June 25, 2010, defendant-appellant filed a motion to suppress.”
State v. Endicott, 2026-Ohio-2215. “Compare R.C. 4513.22 with Bridgeport Cod.Ord. 438.”
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.