8.7Operating a Motor Vehicle While Unlicensed or With Suspended/Revoked License¹

A.Statutory Authority

“(1) An individual whose operator’s or chauffeur’s license or registration certificate has been suspended or revoked, whose application for license has been denied, or who has never applied for a license, shall not operate a motor vehicle on a highway or other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles, including an area designated for the parking of motor vehicles, within this state.

* * *

(4) An individual who operates a motor vehicle in violation of [MCL 257.904(1)] or an individual whose operator’s or chauffeur’s license or registration certificate has been suspended or revoked by another state who operates a motor vehicle during the period of suspension or revocation and who, by operation of that motor vehicle, causes the death of another individual is guilty of a felony[.] . . . [MCL 257.904(4)] does not apply to an individual whose operator’s or chauffeur’s license was suspended because that individual failed to answer a citation or comply with an order or judgment pursuant to [MCL 257.321a].

(5) An individual who operates a motor vehicle in violation of [MCL 257.904(1)] or an individual whose operator’s or chauffeur’s license or registration certificate has been suspended or revoked by another state who operates a motor vehicle during the period of suspension or revocation and who, by operation of that motor vehicle, causes the serious impairment of a body function of another individual is guilty of a felony[.] . . . [MCL 257.904(4)] does not apply to an individual whose operator’s or chauffeur’s license was suspended because that individual failed to answer a citation or comply with an order or judgment pursuant to [MCL 257.321a].” MCL 257.904(1); MCL 257.904(4)-(5).

B.Criminal Penalties

If the operation of the motor vehicle results in serious impairment of a body function, the crime is punishable by:

•imprisonment for not more than 5 years,

•a fine of not less than $1,000.00 or more than $5,000.00,

•or both. MCL 257.904(5).

If the operation of the motor vehicle results in the death of another individual, the crime is punishable by:

•imprisonment for not more than 15 years,

•a fine of not less than $2,500.00 or more than $10,000.00,

•or both. MCL 257.904(4).

C.Sanctions

Only applicable sanctions are discussed; accordingly, if a particular sanction is omitted from this section it is not applicable to this offense. The Offense Code Index for Traffic Violations published by the secretary of state and sourced from Michigan Department of State Court Manual includes a table detailing traffic offenses and applicable sanctions. See Section 1.41 for information on abstracting procedures.

•While MCL 257.320a does not specifically mention MCL 257.904 in its list of offenses requiring an assessment of points, this offense will necessarily be committed in a fashion that constitutes “a felony resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle,” for which six points are assessed. MCL 257.320a(1)(a). See Section 1.42 for more information on points.

•License revocation and denial for at least one year. MCL 257.303(2)(d); MCL 257.303(4)(a)(i)-(ii). See Section 1.44 for more information on license revocation and Section 1.43 for more information on license denial.

•License revocation and denial also occur when a defendant has any combination of two or more convictions within seven years for violation of MCL 257.904(4)-(5) and any of the motor vehicle felonies listed at MCL 257.303(2)(b). See Section 1.44 for more information on license revocation and Section 1.43 for more information on license denial.

•Registration denial is required under certain circumstances. See MCL 257.219(1)(c)-(d). See Section 1.50 for more information on registration denial.

D.Issues

•Applicability of MCL 257.904

MCL 257.904 “does not apply to an individual who operates a vehicle solely for the purpose of protecting human life or property if the life or property is endangered and summoning prompt aid is essential.” MCL 257.904(15). 

“For purposes of [MCL 257.904], an individual who never applied for a license includes an individual who applied for a license, was denied, and never applied again.” MCL 257.904(19). See also People v Acosta-Baustista, 296 Mich App 404, 408 (2012) (holding that MCL 257.904(1) “applies to persons who never apply for a license or who obtain one but subsequently have the license suspended or revoked because of improper driving”).

MCL 257.904(1) does not apply to “a person driving on a valid but recently expired license[.]” Acosta-Baustista, 296 Mich App at 409. “[A] person with a valid license who has simply let it lapse is a person adjudged fit to drive who has merely failed to keep up the related paperwork.” Id. at 408.

MCL 257.904 does not prohibit attempts. People v Burton, 252 Mich App 130, 138 (2002). In Burton, the Court noted that if “the Legislature intended to include the attempt to commit DWLS within the conduct proscribed by the version of MCL 257.904 applicable to the case at hand, it could have written subsection 1 of the statute to read, ‘A person whose operator’s . . . license . . . has been suspended . . . and who has been notified . . . of that suspension . . . shall not operate [or attempt to operate] a motor vehicle upon a highway or other place open to the general public . . . .’ That it chose not to do so will be considered to be a purposeful, not an inadvertent, act.”² Burton, 252 Mich App at 138.

•Causation

The causation element of MCL 257.625(4), a provision that is worded similarly to MCL 257.904(4)-(5), requires only that a defendant’s operation of a motor vehicle—not a defendant’s operation of a vehicle as affected by the defendant’s state of intoxication—be a factual and proximate cause of the harm resulting from the statutory violation. People v Schaefer, 473 Mich 418, 446 (2005). The language of MCL 257.625(4) is almost identical³ to the language of MCL 257.904(4)-(5). Both statutes require a finding that the operator “by operation of that motor vehicle, causes the death [or ‘the serious impairment of a body function[,]’ in the case of MCL 257.904(5),] of another person” in order for the operator to be guilty of the specified felony. MCL 257.625(4); MCL 257.904(4)-(5). Thus, it seems clear that the prosecution need not demonstrate any causal link between a defendant’s revoked or suspended license and the subsequent serious impairment of a body function or death in order to prove a violation of MCL 257.904(4) or (5).

The Schaefer Court explained:

“[MCL 257.625(4)] plainly requires that the victim’s death be caused by the defendant’s operation of the vehicle, not the defendant’s intoxicated operation. Thus, the manner in which the defendant’s intoxication affected his or her operation of the vehicle is unrelated to the causation element of the crime. The defendant’s status as ‘intoxicated’ is a separate element of the offense used to identify the class of persons subject to liability under §625(4).” Schaefer, 473 Mich at 433.

•Double Jeopardy

A defendant’s multiple convictions of second-degree murder, OUIL causing death, and driving with a suspended license causing death do not violate the double jeopardy clauses of the United States and Michigan constitutions. People v Bergman, 312 Mich App 471, 492 (2015). “The statutes governing second-degree murder and driving with a suspended license causing death enforce distinct societal norms, and their respective elements of malice and lack of a valid operator’s license are distinctive to each[;] . . . [s]imilarly, the OUIL and suspended license statutes enforce distinct societal norms, and their respective elements of intoxication while driving and lack of a valid operator’s license are distinctive to each.” Id. at 492 (citations omitted).

•Immigration Status of the Defendant

“[T]he plain language of [MCL 257.904] and [the Convention on the Regulation of Inter-American Automotive Traffic 1943] support a finding that the reasoning underlying MCL 257.904(1) . . . is not affected by the motor vehicle operator’s immigration status and will remain the same regardless of whether the motor vehicle operator is driving pursuant to a license from Michigan, a foreign country that is a signatory to the convention, or one of the other 49 states.” Acosta-Baustista, 296 Mich App at 411.

•Proof of Notice

Admission of a secretary of state certificate of mailing to prove that the defendant was notified of the revocation or suspension of his or her license does not violate the defendant’s constitutional right of confrontation because the certificate of mailing is not testimonial in nature. People v Nunley, 491 Mich 686, 689 (2012). The certificate of mailing is not testimonial because it “is necessarily generated before the commission of any crime, [and thus,] is a function of the legislatively authorized administrative role of the [secretary of state] independent from any investigatory or prosecutorial purpose.” Id. at 689-690. Thus, a “certificate of mailing may be admitted into evidence absent accompanying witness testimony without violating the Confrontation Clause.” Id. at 690.

E.Related Misdemeanor

“An individual whose operator’s or chauffeur's license or registration certificate has been suspended or revoked, whose application for license has been denied, or who has never applied for a license, shall not operate a motor vehicle on a highway or other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles, including an area designated for the parking of motor vehicles, within [Michigan].” MCL 257.904(1). Violation of MCL 257.904(1), without causing serious impairment of a body function or death, is a misdemeanor. MCL 257.904(3).⁴