Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 346 — RULES OF THE ROAD
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 346.88 (2026)

Obstruction of operator’s view or driving mechanism

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
346.88346.88 Obstruction of operator’s view or driving mechanism.
346.88(1)(1) No person shall drive a vehicle when it is so loaded or when there are in the front seat such number of persons, or any persons so situated, as to obstruct the view of the operator to the front or to the sides or as to interfere with the operator having free use of both hands and feet to the operating mechanisms or controls of the vehicle.
346.88(2)(2) No passenger in a vehicle shall ride in such a position as to interfere with the operator’s view ahead or to the sides or to interfere with the operator’s control of the operating mechanism of the vehicle.
346.88(3)(3) 
346.88(3)(a)(a) No person shall drive any motor vehicle with any sign, poster or other nontransparent material upon the front windshield, front side wings, side windows in the driver’s compartment or rear window of such vehicle other than a certificate or other sticker issued by order of a governmental agency. Such permitted sticker shall not cover more than 15 square inches of glass surface and shall be placed in the lower left-hand corner of the windshield; the left corner being on the driver’s left when seated behind the wheel.
346.88(3)(b)(b) No person shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway with any object so placed or suspended in or upon the vehicle so as to obstruct the driver’s clear view through the front windshield.
346.88(3)(c)(c) No person shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway so loaded or with any object so placed or suspended in or upon the vehicle so as to obstruct the driver’s clear vision through the rear window unless such vehicle is equipped with an outside rear view mirror meeting the requirements of s. 347.40.
346.88(3)(d)(d) Signal lamps used by authorized emergency vehicles shall not be considered a violation of this section.
346.88(4)(4) The windshield, side wings and side and rear windows of a motor vehicle shall be kept reasonably clean at all times.
346.88 AnnotationSub. (3) (a) creates an absolute prohibition on “any sign, poster or other nontransparent material upon the front windshield.” By contrast, sub. (4) states, “The windshield, side wings and side and rear windows of a motor vehicle shall be kept reasonably clean at all times.” There is no reason why the legislature would choose to ban oil change stickers, often no more than one or two square inches in size and placed in a top corner of a windshield, but require that same area of a windshield be only “reasonably” clean. Instead, sub. (3) (a) is interpreted to prohibit the attachment of signs, posters, and other items of a similar nature to the front windshield of a motor vehicle. State v. Houghton, 2015 WI 79, 364 Wis. 2d 234, 868 N.W.2d 143, 13-1581.
346.88 AnnotationSub. (3) (b), which requires that an object obstruct a driver’s clear view to be a violation, does not mean that every object in a driver’s clear view is a violation. Rather, sub. (3) (b) requires a material obstruction, even if minor, in order to be considered a violation of the statute. State v. Houghton, 2015 WI 79, 364 Wis. 2d 234, 868 N.W.2d 143, 13-1581.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1964–2026 · leading case: State v. Richard E. Houghton, Jr., 2015 WI 79 (Wis. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Richard E. Houghton, Jr., 2015 WI 79 (Wis. 2015). · cites it 40× “2013AP1581-CR Price had reasonable suspicion to pull Houghton over for a violation of Wis. Stat. § 346.88 (3)(b) (2011-12),3 "Obstruction of operator's view or driving mechanism.”
People v. Mott, 906 N.E.2d 159 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “2—1054 (Michie 2003); Wis. Stat. §346.88 (2007). The third approach criminalizes the placement of any object between the driver and the windshield.”
Est. of Kevin L. Payette v. David E. Marx, 2020 WI App 2 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 346.88(3)(a). ¶9 The demand package then addressed the Estate’s damages.”
State v. Richard R. Rusk (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 9× “’ If no such mark was affixed to the windshield by its manufacturer, no window tinting film may be attached to the windshield.”
State v. Ryan Alan Stenner (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 5× “9 Stenner’s argument fails because, as discussed, § 346.88 is not the only enabling statute for the rear window tinting rule.”
Bey v. Transp. Indem. Co., 127 N.W.2d 251 (Wis. 1964). “” This instruction was predicated on sec. 346.88, Stats. 9 For the purposes of this statute, a toy bike such as that driven by the Bey girls is a “vehicle.”
— Wis. Stat. § 346.88(3) — 2 cases
State v. Ryan Alan Stenner (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “9 Stenner’s argument fails because, as discussed, § 346.88 is not the only enabling statute for the rear window tinting rule.”
State v. Richard R. Rusk (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “’ If no such mark was affixed to the windshield by its manufacturer, no window tinting film may be attached to the windshield.”
— Wis. Stat. § 346.88(3)(a) — 4 cases
State v. Richard E. Houghton, Jr., 2015 WI 79 (Wis. 2015). “2013AP1581-CR Price had reasonable suspicion to pull Houghton over for a violation of Wis. Stat. § 346.88 (3)(b) (2011-12),3 "Obstruction of operator's view or driving mechanism.”
Est. of Kevin L. Payette v. David E. Marx, 2020 WI App 2 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 346.88(3)(a). ¶9 The demand package then addressed the Estate’s damages.”
State v. Richard R. Rusk (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “’ If no such mark was affixed to the windshield by its manufacturer, no window tinting film may be attached to the windshield.”
State v. Ryan Alan Stenner (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “9 Stenner’s argument fails because, as discussed, § 346.88 is not the only enabling statute for the rear window tinting rule.”
— Wis. Stat. § 346.88(3)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Richard E. Houghton, Jr., 2015 WI 79 (Wis. 2015). “2013AP1581-CR Price had reasonable suspicion to pull Houghton over for a violation of Wis. Stat. § 346.88 (3)(b) (2011-12),3 "Obstruction of operator's view or driving mechanism.”
State v. Richard R. Rusk (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “’ If no such mark was affixed to the windshield by its manufacturer, no window tinting film may be attached to the windshield.”
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.