Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 349.06 (2026)
Authority to adopt traffic regulations in strict conformity with state law
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
349.06(1)(a)(a) Except for the suspension or revocation of motor vehicle operator’s licenses or except as provided in par. (b), any local authority may enact and enforce any traffic regulation which is in strict conformity with one or more provisions of chs. 341 to 348 and 350 for which the penalty for violation thereof is a forfeiture.
349.06(1)(b)(b) Any local authority shall enact and enforce parking regulations and penalties for violations of those regulations which are in conformity with the provisions of ss. 346.503, 346.505 and 346.56.
349.06(1)(c)(c) Any local authority may enact and enforce any traffic regulation that is in strict conformity with any rule of the department promulgated under ch. 110, 347 or 348, except rules pertaining to federal motor carrier safety standards, for which the penalty for a violation thereof is a forfeiture.
349.06(1m)(1m) Notwithstanding sub. (1), a municipal court may suspend a license for a violation of a local ordinance in conformity with s. 346.63 (1) or (2m).
349.06(2)(2) Traffic regulations adopted by local authorities which incorporate by reference existing or future amendments to chs. 340 to 348 or rules of the department shall be deemed to be in strict conformity and not contrary to or inconsistent with such chapters or rules. This subsection does not require local traffic regulations to incorporate state traffic laws or rules by reference in order to meet the requirements of s. 349.03 or sub. (1).
349.06(3)(3) If an operator of a vehicle violates a local ordinance in strict conformity with s. 346.04 (1) or (2), 346.18 (6), 346.27, 346.37, 346.39, 346.46 (1), 346.57 (2), (3), (4) (d) to (h), or (5), or 346.62 (2) where persons engaged in work in a highway maintenance or construction area, utility work area, or emergency or roadside response area are at risk from traffic or violates a local ordinance in strict conformity with s. 346.57 (2), (3), (4) (d) to (h), or (5) or 346.62 (2) where sanitation workers are at risk from traffic and the operator knows or should know that sanitation workers are present, any applicable minimum and maximum forfeiture for the violation shall be doubled.
349.06 HistoryHistory: 1971 c. 277, 278, 307; 1973 c. 336; 1975 c. 248; 1981 c. 20; 1987 a. 3, 27; 1993 a. 198, 256; 1995 a. 44; 1997 a. 190, 277; 2013 a. 39; 2021 a. 115.
349.06 AnnotationSection 349.03, in prohibitory language, is the same concept of municipal power that is expressed affirmatively in this section. These sections must be read together and establish one test. Janesville v. Walker, 50 Wis. 2d 35, 183 N.W.2d 158 (1971).
349.06 AnnotationA city ordinance prohibiting loud and unnecessary tire or engine noise was valid under s. 349.03 (1) and sub. (1). City of Janesville v. Garthwaite, 83 Wis. 2d 866, 266 N.W.2d 418 (1978).
349.06 AnnotationA county can enact and enforce traffic ordinances in strict conformance with state statutes that are applicable to town roads. 64 Atty. Gen. 172.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases, 1964–2020 · leading case: City of Janesville v. Garthwaite, 266 N.W.2d 418 (Wis. 1978).
City of Janesville v. Garthwaite, 266 N.W.2d 418 (Wis. 1978). “2d 158 (1971), under sec. 349.06(1), Stats., the legislature affirmatively delegated to municipalities the power to enact traffic regulations which are in strict conformity with the motor vehicle code.”
Deida v. City of Milwaukee, 192 F. Supp. 2d 899 (E.D. Wis. 2002). “Stats., 1969, and all subsequent amendments thereto defining and describing regulations with respect to vehicles and traffic for'which the penalty is forfeiture only, including penalties to be imposed.”
City of Cedarburg v. Ries B. Hansen, 2020 WI 11 (Wis. 2020). “045(1) provides that "[a] municipal court has exclusive jurisdiction over an action in which a municipality seeks to impose forfeitures for violations of municipal ordinances of the municipality that operates the court .”
State v. Thierfelder, 495 N.W.2d 669 (Wis. 1993). “3 Section 349.06, Stats. 1987-88, provides that ".”
U.S. Oil, Inc. v. City of Fond Du Lac, 544 N.W.2d 589 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “See § 349.06(1)(a), STATS. Even though the state had no rules aimed at his specific conduct (Garthwaite was cited for squealing his tires), he argued that the city of Janesville was nonetheless preempted from enacting its own law because the state had generally entered the…”
State v. Peterson, 312 N.W.2d 784 (Wis. 1981). “See also Hough, Wisconsin’s Uniform Traffic Court Procedure, 1972 Wis. Bar Bull. No.”
Scheunemann v. City of West Bend, 507 N.W.2d 163 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). “8 The appellants also cite to sec. 349.06, Stats., in support of this argument.”
Cnty. of Walworth v. Rohner, 324 N.W.2d 682 (Wis. 1982). “Sec. 349.06(1), Stats., 8 empowers local au *719 thorities to enact traffic regulations which are in strict conformity with the provisions of the Vehicle Code.”
City of Madison v. McManus, 171 N.W.2d 426 (Wis. 1969). “The primary challenge is that the city ordinance is invalid because its penalty provision exceeds the provision of the equivalent state statute contrary to sec. 349.06, Stats. The equivalent state statute, sec.”
State Ex Rel. Prentice v. Cnty. Court of Milwaukee Cnty., 234 N.W.2d 283 (Wis. 1975). “16 Sec. 349.06, Stats. 17 Milwaukee v. Horvath, supra, footnote 13, at pages 493, 494; State ex rel.”
City of Janesville v. Walker, 183 N.W.2d 158 (Wis. 1971). “, and held that a city ordinance having for its subject matter a traffic regulation must be in strict conformity with state law, and while the ordinance need not be a carbon copy of the state statute, its penalty could not exceed that imposed by the state which had pre-empted…”
Town of East Troy v. A-1 Serv. Co., Inc., 537 N.W.2d 126 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “, and § 349.06 limit the enactment power of local authorities to that expressly authorized by statute, thereby putting parties on notice that their liability under municipal ordinances could include that under state statutory law — but not the state administrative code.”
— Wis. Stat. § 349.06(1) — 4 cases
City of Janesville v. Garthwaite, 266 N.W.2d 418 (Wis. 1978). “2d 158 (1971), under sec. 349.06(1), Stats., the legislature affirmatively delegated to municipalities the power to enact traffic regulations which are in strict conformity with the motor vehicle code.”
Cnty. of Walworth v. Rohner, 324 N.W.2d 682 (Wis. 1982). “Sec. 349.06(1), Stats., 8 empowers local au *719 thorities to enact traffic regulations which are in strict conformity with the provisions of the Vehicle Code.”
Steel v. Bach, 369 N.W.2d 174 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985).
Town of East Troy v. A-1 Serv. Co., Inc., 537 N.W.2d 126 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “, and § 349.06 limit the enactment power of local authorities to that expressly authorized by statute, thereby putting parties on notice that their liability under municipal ordinances could include that under state statutory law — but not the state administrative code.”
— Wis. Stat. § 349.06(1)(a) — 5 cases
City of Cedarburg v. Ries B. Hansen, 2020 WI 11 (Wis. 2020). “045(1) provides that "[a] municipal court has exclusive jurisdiction over an action in which a municipality seeks to impose forfeitures for violations of municipal ordinances of the municipality that operates the court .”
U.S. Oil, Inc. v. City of Fond Du Lac, 544 N.W.2d 589 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “See § 349.06(1)(a), STATS. Even though the state had no rules aimed at his specific conduct (Garthwaite was cited for squealing his tires), he argued that the city of Janesville was nonetheless preempted from enacting its own law because the state had generally entered the…”
City of Cedarburg v. Ries B. Hansen, 2020 WI 11 (Wis. 2020).
Town of East Troy v. A-1 Serv. Co., Inc., 537 N.W.2d 126 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “, and § 349.06 limit the enactment power of local authorities to that expressly authorized by statute, thereby putting parties on notice that their liability under municipal ordinances could include that under state statutory law — but not the state administrative code.”
Vill. of Chenequa v. Jill Dahlquist (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
— Wis. Stat. § 349.06(2) — 1 case
Town of East Troy v. A-1 Serv. Co., Inc., 537 N.W.2d 126 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “, and § 349.06 limit the enactment power of local authorities to that expressly authorized by statute, thereby putting parties on notice that their liability under municipal ordinances could include that under state statutory law — but not the state administrative code.”
— Wis. Stat. § 349.06(l)(a) — 1 case
U.S. Oil, Inc. v. City of Fond Du Lac, 544 N.W.2d 589 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “See § 349.06(1)(a), STATS. Even though the state had no rules aimed at his specific conduct (Garthwaite was cited for squealing his tires), he argued that the city of Janesville was nonetheless preempted from enacting its own law because the state had generally entered the…”
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.