|
The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site -
www.ag.state.mi.us) STATE OF MICHIGAN
A motor vehicle equipped with a rear-view camera and an in-vehicle monitor that operates and whose picture can be seen by the driver only when the vehicle is motionless or in reverse gear does not violate section 708b of the Michigan Vehicle Code.
Opinion No. 7104 April 12, 2002
Honorable Buzz Thomas You have asked if a motor vehicle equipped with a rear-view camera and an in-vehicle monitor that operates and whose picture can be seen by the driver only when the vehicle is motionless or in reverse gear violates section 708b of the Michigan Vehicle Code. The Michigan Vehicle Code, MCL 257.1 et seq, regulates vehicles operated upon the public highways of the State of Michigan. Section 708b of the Code addresses equipping vehicles with the means of visually receiving data viewable by the driver. Subsection (1) prohibits a person from equipping a motor vehicle with any means of visually receiving a television or video broadcast viewable by or reflected to the driver or operating a vehicle so equipped. Specifically, subsection (1) states:
Section 708b(2)(d) lists a number of exceptions to this prohibition. Among these exceptions is subsection (2)(d), which states that subsection (1) does not apply to "[a] motor vehicle equipped with a video display to monitor the rear view of the vehicle if the monitor is only activated when the vehicle is motionless or in reverse gear." The primary rule of judicial interpretation of statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature. Frankenmuth Mut Ins Co v Marlette Homes, Inc, 456 Mich 511, 515; 573 NW2d 611 (1998). The first criterion for determining legislative intent is the specific language of the statute. In re MCI Telecommunications Complaint, 460 Mich 396, 411; 596 NW2d 164 (1999). The Legislature is presumed to have intended the meaning it plainly expressed. Nation v WDE Electric Co, 454 Mich 489, 494; 563 NW2d 233 (1997). Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, judicial construction is generally neither necessary nor permitted. Lorencz v Ford Motor Co, 439 Mich 370, 376; 483 NW2d 844 (1992). The statutory language in section 708b(2)(d) is clear and unambiguous. Applying the unambiguous language of the Code to your question, it is clear that a motor vehicle equipped with a rear-view camera and in-vehicle monitor that operates and whose picture can be seen by the driver only when the vehicle is in reverse gear complies with section 708b of the Michigan Vehicle Code. It is my opinion, therefore, that a motor vehicle equipped with a rear-view camera and an in-vehicle monitor that operates and whose picture can be seen by the driver only when the vehicle is motionless or in reverse gear does not violate section 708b of the Michigan Vehicle Code.
JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM |