Summary — HB 4664 (Michigan Vehicle Code amendment)
Status and procedural history
- Introduced by Rep. Alicia St. Germaine (filed March 12, 2025; formally introduced June 17, 2025).
- Substitute (H‑1) adopted in committee; House passed the bill with immediate effect on September 16, 2025.
- Referred to the Senate Committee on Civil Rights, Judiciary, and Public Safety (Sept. 18, 2025).
- Companion bill: SB 349.
Purpose and intent
- HB 4664 amends MCL 257.676b (section 676b of the Michigan Vehicle Code) to create a criminal misdemeanor penalty for certain road‑obstruction conduct that currently is treated as a civil infraction. The stated intent is to criminalize blocking or obstructing a public road when done while participating in an assembly on a highway.
Key provisions and changes
- Retains existing prohibition (current law): an unauthorized person may not block, obstruct, impede, or otherwise interfere with the normal flow of vehicular, streetcar, or pedestrian traffic on a public street or highway by means of a barricade, object, device, or their body. Violations are presently a civil infraction (fine up to $100).
- New criminal penalty: if an individual violates the prohibition while "participating in an assembly on a highway in this state," the individual would be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to 93 days imprisonment, a fine up to $5,000, or both.
- Note: The House‑introduced version originally specified an "assembly of 10 or more individuals," but the adopted substitute (H‑1) and the version passed by the House remove the numeric threshold and instead refer generally to "an assembly."
- Existing exceptions preserved/clarified (solicitation by charitable or civic organizations during daylight hours), including requirements such as:
- compliance with applicable local regulations (localities may restrict but not prohibit),
- organization maintains at least $500,000 liability insurance,
- solicitors be age 18+, wear high‑visibility safety apparel meeting certain standards, solicit within intersections with traffic control devices (not work zones), and not interfere with streetcar movement.
- Local government/road authority immunity for claims arising from the authorized solicitation activity is included.
- Transitional/administrative language referencing local regulations from 2017 remains.
Who would be affected
- Individuals participating in assemblies/protests that obstruct highways (potentially broad given the statutory definition of "highway" as any publicly maintained way open to vehicular travel).
- Motorists, public transit/streetcar operations, law enforcement, prosecutors, local courts, and county jails/probation systems.
- Charitable and civic solicitors operating under the specified exception; local governments (regulatory limits, immunity provisions).
Fiscal and legal considerations
- Fiscal impact: indeterminate. Potential increases in local incarceration and probation costs, and court caseloads; penal fine revenue (if collected) would go to public and county law libraries.
- Constitutional context: the bill interacts with First Amendment protections for assembly and established time/place/manner doctrine (courts permit reasonable, content‑neutral restrictions narrowly tailored to serve significant government interests). Civil liberties groups (e.g., ACLU of Michigan) and criminal defense organizations testified in opposition on constitutional/free‑speech grounds; prosecutors and sheriffs testified in support emphasizing public safety/order.
Notable ambiguities and issues
- The substitute that passed the House does not define "assembly," which may raise interpretive and constitutional questions if prosecuted.
- Scope is broad because "highway" under the Vehicle Code includes many public ways beyond limited‑access roads.
Bottom line
- HB 4664 converts certain roadside obstruction conduct from a civil infraction into a misdemeanor when committed while participating in an assembly on a highway, increases maximum penalties (up to 93 days jail and $5,000 fine), preserves limited exceptions for organized solicitation, and leaves open potential constitutional and implementation questions due to the lack of a statutory definition of "assembly" and a broad statutory scope.
