Michigan Dash Cams Turn on the Screen, Not the Windshield Zone

Section 708b was written in 1991 for televisions and last amended by 2008 PA 19, so it approaches the modern dash cam from the display side. Subsection (1) reaches only a device that displays a video image viewable by the operator while the vehicle is in motion. A camera that records to a memory card and shows nothing, or that shows only a small live preview of the road ahead, is not doing what the subsection prohibits. Subsection (2)(d) confirms the point for live views by exempting a motor vehicle equipped with a video display to enhance or supplement the driver's view, which is the same subdivision that legalises factory backup cameras and camera mirrors. Subsection (2)(g) separately exempts a display used to communicate vehicle, driver or safety conditions. What is not permitted is playing back the footage on the camera's own screen while driving, because at that point the device is displaying a video image to the operator in motion and no exception covers it.

The placement rule in subsection (3) is narrower than most drivers assume. It says a visual device permitted under subsection (2)(a) or (b), meaning an audio entertainment system, heating and air conditioning or other accessory controls, or a vehicle information or navigation system limited to location, routes, destinations, road layouts, weather, traffic and road conditions, vehicle conditions and traveler services, must be built into the dashboard, center console, instrument panel, rearview mirror or another control area and must meet applicable federal motor vehicle dash safety standards. An aftermarket version of those same two categories may instead be installed or mounted on the windshield or above the dashboard, but never within the deployment profile of the vehicle airbags or in a manner that interferes with the operator's view or control. A dash cam is not a (2)(a) or (2)(b) device, so this subsection is not the source of permission to stick one on the glass. It is, however, the clearest statement Michigan makes about where windshield electronics may sit, and the airbag and interference limits it names are the standard an officer will apply.

The operative mounting rule for a camera is MCL 257.709(1)(c), which prohibits operating a motor vehicle with an object that obstructs the vision of the driver except as authorized by law. Michigan gives no measured allowance to work with. There is no seven-inch lower-corner square as in some states and no listed exception for a recording device anywhere in section 709, whose only carve-outs are the top four inch tint strip, rear-window treatments, a necessary certificate or sticker that does not obstruct the driver's clear view, out-of-state vehicles and a physician-certified medical window treatment. Because the test is functional obstruction rather than a measured box, a compact camera tucked behind the rearview mirror or low on the passenger side, clear of the airbag deployment area, is the placement that keeps a Michigan driver out of both provisions. A large screen suction-cupped to the center of the windshield is exposed under 709(1)(c) even though the camera itself is lawful equipment.

Using a phone as the camera is expressly protected. Michigan's hands-free law, MCL 257.602b, took its current form in 2023 PA 41 effective June 30, 2023, and bans holding or using a mobile electronic device while driving. Subsection (3)(e) then removes from that ban the use of a mobile electronic device used for the sole purpose of continuously recording or broadcasting video inside or outside of a motor vehicle, and subsection (3)(f) adds the use of a device placed in a mount for any of the purposes in subdivisions (a) to (e). A phone running a dash cam app in a cradle is therefore lawful under 602b, and the definitional list in subsection (13) confirms why the exemption was needed, since viewing, recording or transmitting a video is otherwise a prohibited use. Subsection (7) supersedes local ordinances on device use while driving except ordinances that substantially correspond to the state section, so a Michigan city cannot impose its own stricter dash cam rule.

Audio is the separate question. MCL 750.539c makes it a felony punishable by up to 2 years or a fine of up to $2,000.00, or both, to wilfully use any device to eavesdrop on a private conversation without the consent of all parties. MCL 750.539a(2) defines eavesdropping as overhearing, recording, amplifying or transmitting any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in it, and MCL 750.539a(1) defines a private place as one where a person may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance, excluding any place the public or a substantial group of the public can access. A cabin-facing camera left recording while passengers talk is the fact pattern that puts these sections in play, and telling passengers the camera records sound removes the issue entirely.

00 plus costs. 907(9) requires the court to waive the fine, costs and assessments where a law enforcement agency certifies that the defective equipment was repaired before the appearance date on the citation, so relocating the camera before the court date normally ends the ticket. 715a. Phone-as-camera violations are priced differently. 00 for a commercial motor vehicle or school bus driver, and subsection (6) doubles any of those fines where the driver is at fault in an accident. Three violations of subsection (1) within 3 years require the court to order a basic driver improvement course under subsection (8). Subsection (9) makes a device violation a primary offence but forbids searching the vehicle, driver or passengers solely because of it.