Michigan Crash Reports & Privilege: MCL 257.624 (2026)
The police officer’s UD-10 crash report is often the most-quoted document in the days after a Michigan car accident. Insurers cite it, claims adjusters paraphrase it, and clients arrive at the office believing it controls the case. MCL 257.624 says the opposite: the report itself is not admissible in a civil suit. Knowing how the privilege works — and what evidence still gets in — is what separates a clean liability proof from a defense-friendly mess.
What the Statute Says
MCL 257.624 provides that an accident report required to be filed under the Michigan Vehicle Code “shall not be available for use in a court action.” The legislature’s purpose was to encourage candid reporting at the scene without fear that the driver’s statements would become trial evidence. The companion provision, MCL 257.622, requires the report itself. Together they create a closed loop: drivers must report, and the report cannot be weaponized against them in court.
What the Privilege Does Not Cover
The privilege protects the report, not the underlying facts. Several categories of evidence routinely survive the MCL 257.624 objection:
- The officer’s personal observations. If the officer testifies live about skid marks, vehicle positions, debris fields, or visibility — observations the officer made independently of writing the report — the testimony is admissible under MRE 602 personal-knowledge rules.
- Party admissions. Statements made by the at-fault driver at the scene are admissions under MRE 801(d)(2) and can be introduced through the officer or any other witness who heard them. The privilege does not protect a party’s own words.
- Photographs and dashcam footage. Body-worn camera and dashcam captures from responding officers are physical evidence, not the statutory report, and are typically admissible subject to the usual MRE 901 authentication.
- The Traffic Crash Reconstruction Unit report. A serious-injury or fatality crash often draws a Michigan State Police reconstruction. That is a separate document from the UD-10 and is not categorically covered by MCL 257.624.
- EDR (event data recorder) downloads. The black-box data from each vehicle’s airbag control module is a separate evidentiary source.
Why Insurance Adjusters Quote It Anyway
Trial inadmissibility does not stop adjusters from leaning on the report during pre-suit negotiation. The carrier’s first move after a crash is almost always to pull the UD-10 and quote the responding officer’s “Hazardous Action” code. If the report assigns hazardous action to the claimant, the carrier opens with a low offer and a citation to that code. Plaintiff’s counsel responds by reminding the carrier that the report is not admissible, that the officer’s conclusion is hearsay, and that the carrier’s settlement evaluation should turn on what the proofs at trial would actually look like.
| Document or Source | Admissible at Trial? | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| UD-10 crash report (statutory) | No | Excluded by MCL 257.624 |
| Officer’s live testimony to personal observations | Yes | MRE 602 personal knowledge; MRE 701 lay opinion |
| Party admission at the scene | Yes | MRE 801(d)(2)(A); officer may relay |
| Bodycam / dashcam video | Yes | Authenticate under MRE 901(a) |
| MSP TCRU reconstruction report | Conditionally | Expert opinion subject to MRE 702 / Daubert |
| EDR data (Bosch CDR download) | Yes | 49 CFR Part 563; MRE 702 expert foundation |
| Civil-infraction citation issued at the scene | Conditionally | Conviction may come in under MRE 803(22); no-contest plea does not |
Citations vs. Convictions
A traffic citation written at the scene is a different evidentiary creature from the crash report. The citation itself is not the report. If the driver pleads guilty or is convicted at trial of the underlying civil infraction (running a red light under MCL 257.612, failing to yield, careless driving under MCL 257.626b), the conviction is admissible against the driver in the civil case under MRE 803(22). A no-contest plea is not admissible. A dismissed citation is not admissible either, though the prosecutor’s decision to dismiss can sometimes be developed on cross-examination of the officer.
Getting the Report and the Underlying Evidence
The first 30 days after a crash decide whether the case has the evidentiary spine to survive a defense motion in limine. Plaintiff’s counsel should:
- Order the UD-10 immediately. Useful for adjuster context and to identify witnesses, even though inadmissible at trial.
- Request bodycam and dashcam footage through a FOIA request directed at the responding agency. Most departments purge unrelated footage on a 30- to 90-day cycle.
- Subpoena 911 audio. The dispatch recording often captures admissions and contemporaneous descriptions that beat the on-scene statements.
- Preserve EDR data. Send a litigation-hold letter to the registered owner within days of intake. Spoliation under Brenner v. Kolk, 226 Mich. App. 149 (1997), still applies.
- Lock in witness identities. Names and contact information on the UD-10 are the starting point for sworn statements that are admissible.
Cross-Examining the Officer Without Walking Into the Privilege
Defense counsel will often try to leverage the privilege both ways — keeping the officer’s report out when it favors the plaintiff and quietly inviting the officer to read from it during direct when it favors the defense. Plaintiff’s counsel should object the moment the officer reaches for the report on the stand. The proper path is independent recollection or refreshing recollection under MRE 612 with the report itself remaining out of evidence. Where the officer cannot remember the scene without the report, the practical effect is that the testimony itself becomes thin and easier to cross.
Cross-Border Crashes: Federal Court and Foreign-Reciprocity Cases
Michigan’s privilege follows Michigan substantive law in federal diversity cases under Erie. Counsel litigating a Michigan crash in the Eastern or Western District should brief MCL 257.624 in any motion in limine. For cases crossing into Ohio or Ontario, neither jurisdiction has a parallel privilege; their police reports come in subject to local rules.
Tying It Back to the No-Fault Claim
The privilege does not affect PIP coverage. The no-fault carrier under MCL 500.3105 must pay regardless of fault, and the carrier cannot deny coverage because the UD-10 assigns hazardous action to the insured. For the third-party tort claim under MCL 500.3135, however, the absence of the report at trial means the plaintiff must build the liability proof through eyewitness testimony, physical evidence, reconstruction, and party admissions.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Michigan police accident report admissible in court?
No. MCL 257.624 makes the statutory crash report inadmissible in any court action.
Can the officer still testify?
Yes, but only to personal observations and statements the officer heard at the scene — not from the contents of the report itself.
Are party admissions at the scene admissible?
Yes. Admissions by a party-opponent under MRE 801(d)(2) survive the MCL 257.624 privilege and can be introduced through any witness who heard them.
What about a ticket written at the scene?
The citation itself is not the report. A guilty plea or conviction on the underlying infraction is admissible under MRE 803(22). A no-contest plea or a dismissal is not.
How do I get the report?
Request the UD-10 from the investigating agency or through the Michigan State Police Traffic Crash Purchasing System. For body-camera footage, file a FOIA request promptly — retention windows are short.
Does the privilege apply in a no-fault PIP dispute?
Yes. PIP eligibility under MCL 500.3105 does not depend on fault, and the privilege applies the same way in a first-party PIP suit as in a third-party tort case.
Injured in Michigan? Don’t face this alone.
Free, confidential review with Attorney Manny Chahal. No fee unless we recover.
Call 1-844-624-2425