Shifting Gears ~ Dondi Vesprini - Attorney

  I hope everyone had an enjoyable Fall. In my neck of the woods, it stayed unseasonably mild which allowed for a stretch of the riding season. I hope it was similar for everyone to enjoy some late Fall rides before Winter sets in. It’s always nice to hear the rumble of tail pipes against the back drop of a beautiful Michigan Fall season. Speaking of rumbling of the tail pipes, this brings me to the topic of this month’s article, which is the proposed revisions to Michigan’s noise law as it pertains to sound emitted from a motorcycle.

The bill, being House Bill 5696, has been the topic of conversation both at the State level and amongst various Regions. It was introduced on April 30, 2024, and contrary to popular belief, is not introducing decibel levels for motorcycles. Michigan law has placed a decibel level on motor vehicles and motorcycles long before House Bill 5696 was ever introduced.

Under current Michigan law, a motorcycle may not be operated on a highway or street if it produces total noise exceeding one of the following limits at a distance of 50 feet.

1. 86 DBA if max lawful speed on the highway or street is over 35 mph

2. 82 DBA if max lawful speed on the highway is not more than 35 mph

or 95 DBA under a stationary run-up test at 75 inches.

“DBA” or “Decibels on the a-weighted network “means decibels measured on the a-weighted network of a sound level meter, as specified in American national standards institute standard S 1.4–1971. Most sound level meters look like handheld devices with a microphone on the end.

To put decibel levels in perspective, according to Yale University, normal conversation carries a decibel level of 60-70, a vacuum cleaner comes in at 75 and a telephone dial tone carries an 85 decibel level. The full chart is to the right.

As one can see, it does not take a significant amount of sound to reach the forbidden decibel levels of 82 – 86 DBA under our current law, and clearly noise generated by certain makes and models of motorcycles can easily surpass those decibel levels. 

On a related note, our current law also provides that a person shall not operate a vehicle on a highway or street if the vehicle’s exhaust system is equipped with a cutout, bypass, amplifier or a similar device.

House Bill 5696 does nothing to change the legal decibel levels or the prohibition of allowing an exhaust system to be equipped with a cutout, bypass, amplifier or a similar device. Under the current law, a violation of the decibel levels or exhaust system modification is a civil infraction calling for a civil fine of not more than $100.00. 

House Bill 5696 actually calls for the Court not to assess fines and costs for a decibel level violation if the operator provides proof to the Court prior to the hearing date that the vehicle is no longer in violation of the rule. 

However, when it comes to the rule against modified exhaust systems it calls for stiffer penalties. The bill provides that regarding exhaust system modification, a first violation receives a fine of $500.00 and 2nd or 3rd or more violations receive a fine of $1,000.00. The original bill also called for a 3rd violation to be deemed a misdemeanor, but this provision was removed in the substitute bill adopted June 26, 2024. Similar to the decibel law, if the operator provides proof the vehicle is no longer in violation of the modified exhaust system law, the Court shall not assess fines or costs for a 1stviolation nor shall the Court assess $500.00 of the fines for a 2ndviolation.

Interestingly, the bill also calls for no points to be assessed for decibel level or exhaust system modification violations.

Currently, consideration of HB 5696 has been temporarily postponed by the House.

I have heard some ABATE members saying they are not necessarily worried about the decibel laws because police won’t be able to detect decibel levels as a motorcycle is passing them by in order to trigger a traffic stop. However, according to at least one Michigan Court of Appeals panel, an officer may not be required to articulate a suspicion of a particularized decibel level violation to otherwise use the sound as the basis for a valid traffic stop.

In 2016, the Michigan Court of Appeals decided a case regarding the validity of a traffic stop which was effectuated based on a State trooper hearing a loud muffler as a vehicle passed her by. In the case, a Michigan State Police trooper was parked on the side of a highway watching traffic. She heard the defendant’s car muffler as it passed her by so she effectuated a traffic stop of the vehicle. Once the vehicle was pulled over, the officer smelled marijuana inside the car and the operator was arrested for possession of drugs. The issue before the Court was whether this was a valid traffic stop. The Court noted that in order to effectuate a valid traffic stop, a police officer must have an articulable and reasonable suspicion that a vehicle or one of its occupants is subject to seizure for a violation of law. The Court also noted that reasonable suspicion entails something more than an inchoate or unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch,' but less than the level of suspicion required for probable cause. The defendant argued that it was an invalid stop because the trooper could not have had reasonable suspicion that he was violating the decibel level law because the trooper had no knowledge about the specific decibel legal limits nor any equipment or training to corroborate her suspicion that his exhaust exceeded the legal decibel level. However, the Court stated that the trooper didn’t testify about a violation of the decibel levels, she testified that the defendant's muffler as he passed, was not "normal for a vehicle that . . . has a functioning muffler," and initiated a traffic stop for "a defective loud exhaust." Along these lines, the Court pointed out that in addition to the statute regarding decibel levels, Michigan also has statutes which requires that a motor vehicle "be equipped with a muffler in good working order and in constant operation to prevent excessive or unusual noise" and "be equipped with a properly operating exhaust system” and prohibits a person from "operat[ing] a vehicle with a defect in the exhaust system which affects sound reduction. Ultimately, the Court found that there were other vehicles in the area providing a contrast in sounds when the trooper made her auditory observation of the defendant’s vehicle which demonstrated "a particularized and objective basis for suspecting" that the defendant was in violation of the motor vehicle code. 

As always, if anyone has any questions or if I can be of legal assistance to you or anyone you know who has been injured in a motorcycle accident, please don’t hesitate to contact me as I successfully represent injured motorcyclists statewide. 

Further, if you would like to have me come out to your Region or any other organization you belong to, to speak or give a presentation on the legal rights of an injured motorcyclist or on any specific topic that your group may be curious about, please don’t hesitate to give me a call at (248-569-4646) or shoot me an e-mail at Dondi@buckfirelaw.com. I give presentations state-wide and there is never a charge associated with having me out. I enjoy having the opportunity to come out and meet motorcycle enthusiasts from all parts of our State!