Phone: (517) 373-8080
FAILING TO STOP FOR STOPPED SCHOOL BUS
House Bill 4928 as introduced Analysis available at
Sponsor: Rep. Nate Shannon http://www.legislature.mi.gov
House Bills 4929 and 4930 as introduced
Sponsor: Rep. Tyrone Carter
Committee: Regulatory Reform [Notice to discharge]
Complete to 11-8-23
House Bills 4928, 4929, and 4930 would amend different acts to do the following:
• Authorize a school district (instead of, as currently, a school) to install or operate a
stop-arm camera system on a school bus or enter into a contract with a vendor to do so.
• Additionally allow a school district to enter into an agreement with a law enforcement
agency to report a vehicle passing, or failing to stop behind, a school bus that is stopped
and has its red lights flashing and to provide evidence to the agency from the stop-arm
camera system. (HB 4930)
• Remove a provision that now requires a stop-arm camera system to be able to capture
images of a distance of at least 200 feet in front of the school bus. (HB 4928)
• Require the registered owner of a vehicle that commits a camera-based violation to be
fined between $250 and $500 (The bill would also raise the minimum fine to $250 for
non-camera-based violations, but would keep the maximum fine at $500). (HB 4928)
• Establish the proceedings for establishing and resolving a camera-based violation. (HB
• Require the civil fine described above to be distributed to the school district that
operates the school bus. (HBs 4928 and 4930)
House Bill 4928 would amend the Motor Vehicle Code. Section 682 of the code now provides
that the operator of a vehicle who fails to stop at least 20 feet away from a school bus that has
stopped and is displaying two alternately flashing red lights is responsible for a civil infraction
for which the operator must be ordered to pay a civil fine of at least $100 but not more than
$500 under section 907 of the code. (Section 682 establishes a rebuttable presumption that the
registered owner of the vehicle was the operator of the vehicle at the time of the violation.)
The bill instead would provide that, in the case of a camera-based violation, the registered
owner of a vehicle that fails to stop as described above is responsible for a civil infraction, no
matter who was operating the vehicle at the time. (The bill would retain the rebuttable
presumption that the registered owner was the operator, although under the bill it would appear
to apply only to violations that are not camera-based violations.) In addition, under the bill, the
owner (or operator for violations other than a camera-based violation) would have to be ordered
to pay a civil fine of at least $250 but not more than $500.
Camera-based violation would mean a violation based solely on a photograph captured
or a video recorded by a stop-arm camera system.
House Fiscal Agency Page 1 of 6
For a violation of section 682, or an ordinance substantially similar to the section, a photograph
captured or video recorded by a stop-arm camera system would be prima facie evidence in a
proceeding for the violation described above. A certificate (or facsimile of a certificate) based
on an inspection of a photograph captured or video recorded by a stop-arm camera system and
sworn to or affirmed by a law enforcement officer of a law enforcement agency would also be
prima facie evidence. While these pieces of evidence would not be required for a prosecution,
a school district would have to provide a photograph or video from a stop-arm camera system
upon request by an investigating law enforcement agency.
Camera-based violation proceedings
For camera-based violations only, a law enforcement agency would have to review information
from a stop-arm camera system within 30 days of receiving it to determine if there is sufficient
evidence of a violation, and electronically certify a citation if sufficient evidence is found. If it
is determined that a violation occurred, the agency (or its agent) would have to send a citation
and notice of violation by first-class mail to the registered owner of the motor vehicle involved
in the citation. The notice would have to include all of the following:
• A copy of the captured photograph or selected images from a recorded video showing
the motor vehicle involved in the violation.
• If the violation is based on a recorded video, a method to review the recorded video on
• The date, time, and location of the alleged violation.
• The amount of the civil fine and the date by which it must be paid.
• A copy of a certificate described above, if applicable, and a statement of the facts
inferred from the captured photograph or recorded video.
• Instructions for how to pay the civil fine or otherwise respond to the citation.
• A warning that a failure to pay the civil fine or otherwise respond to the citation within
30 days after it is mailed is an admission of responsibility for the civil infraction.
The registered owner of the vehicle could admit responsibility for the civil infraction and pay
the civil fine as indicated on the citation and notice of violation or otherwise respond as
provided in section 743 of the code. Payment of the civil fine would be a final disposition of
the civil infraction. In addition, the bill would provide that, unlike other violations of the code,
the failure of the citation would not require the owner to appear for a hearing or other
If the registered owner does not pay the fine or otherwise respond within 30 days of the mailing
of the citation and notice, the law enforcement agency or agent would have to send a final
notice of the unpaid civil fine that informs the owner that the agency or agent will send an
electronic referral to the secretary of state (SOS), in a form prescribed by the SOS, if the civil
fine is not paid within 30 days after the final notice was mailed and that the referral will result
in the SOS’s refusing to renew the registration of the motor vehicle and prohibiting the title
transfer of the motor vehicle in Michigan.
Within five days of receiving a referral, the SOS would have to enter the referral into its motor
vehicle database and refuse to renew the registration of the motor vehicle and prohibit the title
transfer of the motor vehicle in Michigan until it has received notification from a law
enforcement agency or agent the civil fine has been paid. The notification from the agency or
agent would be in an electronic format and method prescribed by the SOS.
House Fiscal Agency HBs 4928, 4929, and 4930 as introduced Page 2 of 6
Fines for a camera-based violation would be paid to the county treasurer or their designee, who
would have to distribute the paid civil fines on at least a monthly basis to the school district
that operates the school bus. County treasurers could contract with a private vendor to process
civil fines, including a private vendor contracted by a school district under House Bill 4930.
The bill would also make complementary changes to other sections of the Motor Vehicle Code.
Stopping for a school bus across a dividing section
Currently, the act does not require a vehicle operator to stop upon meeting a school bus that
has stopped across an intervening space, barrier, or section that is constructed to impede
The bill would require that an operator would not be required to stop at upon meeting a bus
that has stopped across a raised intervening space, physical barrier, or dividing section except
if a crosswalk or pedestrian walkway is present.
MCL 257.682 et seq.
House Bill 4929 would amend the Revised Judicature Act, which provides for the distribution
of fines and costs assessed by a district court and imposed for a violation of a state or local
criminal law, or ordered in a state or local civil infraction action.
The bill would provide that a civil fine ordered in a civil infraction action for a camera-based
violation of section 682 of the Michigan Vehicle Code (failing to stop for or passing a stopped
school bus flashing its red lights), or a substantially corresponding local ordinance, would be
paid to the county treasurer or their designee and be distributed to a school district as proposed
by HB 4928.
The Revised Judicature Act also provides that a county, city, village, or township may by
ordinance establish a municipal ordinance violations bureau to accept admissions of
responsibility for municipal civil infractions and collect and retain civil fines and costs under
a schedule as prescribed by ordinance.
The bill would add that if the county, city, village, or township has an ordinance that
substantially corresponds to section 682 of the Michigan Vehicle Code, a civil fine ordered for
a camera-based violation of that ordinance would be paid to the county treasurer or their
designee and be distributed to a school district as proposed by HB 4928.
MCL 600.8379 and 600.8396
House Bill 4930 would amend the Pupil Transportation Act, which was recently amended by
2021 PA 52 to allow a school bus to be equipped with a stop-arm camera system.
Stop-arm camera system means a system of two or more cameras affixed to a school
bus that meets all of the following requirements:
• It is synchronized to automatically record video or one or more sequenced
photographs of a vehicle passing or failing to stop behind a school bus that is
stopped and flashing its red lights.
House Fiscal Agency HBs 4928, 4929, and 4930 as introduced Page 3 of 6
• It is capable of capturing images of the vehicle, the registration plate on the
rear of the vehicle, and a distance of at least 200 feet in front of the school bus.
• It records the date, time, and location on an photograph captured or video
recorded by the system.
The bill would amend the above definition to remove the italicized language. The bill also
would move the definition from section 20 of the act to section 5.
The act now allows a school to either install and operate a stop-arm camera system on a school
bus or enter into a contract with a private vendor to install and operate it.
The bill instead would allow a school district (rather than a school) to do any of the following:
• Equip a school bus with a stop-arm camera system.
• Enter into an agreement with a law enforcement agency to report, directly or through
a private vendor, a violation of the Michigan Vehicle Code requirement to stop for a
school bus that is stopped and flashing its red lights and to provide the photograph
captured or video recorded by the stop-arm camera system to the law enforcement
• Enter into a contract with a private vendor to do one or more of the following:
o Install, operate, and provide support to a stop-arm camera system on a school
o Perform a school district’s obligations under an agreement with a law
enforcement agency as described above.
School district would mean (as defined in section 6 of the Revised School Code) a
general powers school district organized under the Revised School Code, a community
district, or a school district of the first class.
Law enforcement agency would mean the Department of State Police, a county
sheriff’s office, the police department of a local unit of government (a county, city,
village, or township or state university or college), or any other governmental law
enforcement agency in this state.
If required by a contract entered into with a law enforcement agency, private vendors operating
a stop-arm camera system would have to provide all of the following information to a law
enforcement agency authorized to enforce the Michigan Vehicle Code requirement to stop for
a school bus that is stopped and flashing its red lights (as amended by HB 4928), if the camera
system captures a photograph or records video showing an alleged violation of that statute:
• A copy of the photograph captured or video recorded showing the motor vehicle.
• The registration plate number and state of issuance of the registration plate.
• The date, time, and place of the alleged violation.
The bill also would make a technical correction to the definitions of the terms “motor bus” and
“motor carrier of passengers” for purposes of the act.
MCL 257.1805 and 257.1820
House Fiscal Agency HBs 4928, 4929, and 4930 as introduced Page 4 of 6
According to committee testimony, the current statute that allows schools to purchase and
install stop-arm camera systems favors more affluent areas that can afford to allocate funds for
the technology. Supporters argue that the bills would open the option to other areas by
providing the opportunity to enter into contracts with private vendors to operate the systems
and redirecting civil fines to cover the costs.
Opponents of the legislation argue that they are redundant, as school districts are already able
to enter into contracts with private vendors for the camera systems. In addition, they argue that
other legislation that has already been enacted, including funding in the school aid budget and
allowing the use of sinking fund millages on school buses, 1 will enable more school districts
to install the camera systems.
In addition, the bills would redirect revenue from civil fines away from its longstanding
allocation to public libraries and county law libraries. This allocation was placed in law when
several traffic violations were made civil infractions in 1978. Before those amendments, all
traffic violations were criminal violations. Civil infractions were created as a new class of
traffic violations for which no imprisonment could be imposed. The state constitution requires
that penal (e.g., criminal) fines be exclusively applied to the support of public libraries and
county law libraries. The allocation of traffic civil fines to those libraries was enacted to offset
the loss of penal fine revenue as a result of the decriminalization of traffic violations. Some
feel that the allocation of civil fine revenue to libraries should be protected.
The bills would likely cause increased administrative costs for law enforcement agencies,
though the magnitude of the increase is currently indeterminate.
The bills could generate additional revenue for local school districts that operate a stop-arm
camera system on school buses. The bills require revenue from civil fines collected from
camera-based violations for passing or failing to stop for a stopped school bus to be directed
to the school district that operates the school bus. The bills require fines to be between $250
and $500 per infraction.
The bills would reduce revenue for public and county law libraries, as revenue from civil fines
would be directed to school districts instead of to libraries.
A representative of Bus Patrol testified in support of the bills. (9-19-23)
A representative of the Michigan Association of Pupil Transportation testified in opposition to
the bills. (9-19-23)
House Fiscal Agency HBs 4928, 4929, and 4930 as introduced Page 5 of 6
Representatives of the following entities indicated opposition to the bills (9-19-23):
• Michigan Library Association
• Michigan District Judges Association
• Oakland Schools
Legislative Analyst: Alex Stegbauer
Fiscal Analysts: Marcus Coffin
■ This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan House Fiscal Agency staff for use by House members in their
deliberations and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.
House Fiscal Agency HBs 4928, 4929, and 4930 as introduced Page 6 of 6Statutes affected:
House Introduced Bill: 600.8379, 600.8396
As Passed by the House: 600.8379, 600.8396