Recommendation for a traffic ticket Attorney

Call the courthouse and ask to speak with the clerk. See if the DA or magistrate will work with you on the ticket without you having to show. If not, ask the clerk for an attorney, one that she can recommend with a good track record that gets along with the judge. That is what I would do and have done in the past with good results.

 

If you call someone like attorney Jim Klepper, his office has a list of nationwide attorneys that understand the trucking game.

Klepper is in Oklahoma, I had a ticket in Ohio and Kleppers assistant got a local Ohio attorney to show up to court for me and the ticket was dismissed.

IMO, truckers are better off getting an attorney. I have heard stories about drivers having to show up to court multiple times for stuff they were not even involved in.

 

When I got a ticket in NC a few years ago, I had a local attorney (in NC) that found out about the ticket and had offered to fight it for me

 

This has been brought up many times.. What is not widely known is this.

The rules have changed regarding CDL holders who are given citations. Used to, you could 'plea down' a citation to a non-moving violation; it still had a fine but wouldn't show up on your DMV report. No longer. Under new Federal guidelines, courts cannot 'plea down' a trucker's citation; it either stands or it's dismissed. Nor can a trucker go to traffic school to have a citation removed from his/her record. You must depend on the mercy of the court. So it's even more important your attorney presents proof you're truly a quality, safety-conscious trucker caught making a minor mistake; or, the officer made a mistake, not you.

Fighting tickets

CA is the only state that I know of that you can Plead down a ticket.

Being able to go to driving school is called "Anti-Masking", if you have an CDL you cannot use this anymore.

FMCSA emphasized that in order to apply § 384.226 to determine whether masking occurred, there has to be a judgment of guilt for a violation.

49 CFR 384.226 - Prohibition on masking convictions.
§ 384.226 Prohibition on masking convictions.
The State must not mask, defer imposition of judgment, or allow an individual to enter into a diversion program that would prevent a CLP or CDL holder's conviction for any violation, in any type of motor vehicle, of a State or local traffic control law (other than parking, vehicle weight, or vehicle defect violations) from appearing on the CDLIS driver record, whether the driver was convicted for an offense committed in the State where the driver is licensed or another State.

<<>>

Land Line Magazine: The Business Magazine for Professional Truckers

Behind the mask

By Jeff McConnell & James Mennella
Attorneys at law



Masking. This has to be one of the most misunderstood, misapplied, wrongly interpreted and abused concepts of the entire Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration arsenal. Now, the purpose of this article isn’t to bash the FMCSA. In fact, the purpose of this article is quite the opposite. Even though we disagree with the entire “masking” concept, at least the FMCSA gets it right when it comes to defining and implementing the term itself.

The concept of “masking,” as invented and defined by the FMCSA, is really very simple. Not allowing a state court to “mask a conviction” simply means the feds don’t want state courts to “prevent” or “postpone” traffic convictions from being reported to a driver’s home state.

If you’re convicted of a traffic offense, it’s got to be reported to your home state. So, if the term “masking” is really that simple, then why is it being grossly and perhaps even unconstitutionally misapplied to CDL drivers? For something a little different, we’re going to ask you the questions and, before you read the answers, think about it, draw a conclusion and see if you’re close. Good luck.

Q: You’re issued a ticket for “improper lane change.” Before the ticket is filed with the court, the prosecutor determines to only file the charge as a “defective muffler.” Final conviction is for “defective muffler,” and that is the only charge ever signed by the prosecutor or filed with the court. Is this masking?

A: No. This practice is not in violation of 49 CFR 384.226 because the violation was reduced before a judgment of guilt was pronounced. Before we can apply the conditions in 49 CFR 384.226 to determine whether masking has taken place, there has to be a judgment of guilt (conviction) for a violation. The masking provision in 49 CFR 384.226 does not prevent plea bargaining from taking place.

Q: A CDL holder operating a noncommercial vehicle is issued a traffic citation for “Failure to Yield Right of Way.” The court convicts the driver of the “failure to yield right of way” charge, and the conviction is posted to the driver’s record. A driver improvement program is allowed in lieu of having points assessed on his/her driver record. Is this masking?

A: The failure to assign “points” does not violate 49 CFR 383/384. However, if the federal regulations required the imposition of a disqualification period for the convicted offense – and the court then allowed a Driver Improvement Program in lieu of having the director impose a disqualification for the prescribed period of time – this would be in violation of 49 CFR §384.215/384.213/384.231 as a diversion deferral program.

Q: You receive a traffic ticket and try to work a plea bargain with the prosecutor, who tells you that because of the “masking” rules he can’t help you. Is this correct?

A: Generally, the answer is no. The “masking” provision is not a prohibition on prosecutorial or judicial discretion. However, we have found that many have either misinterpreted the rule, been taught incorrectly, or are using it as a scapegoat to wash their hands of plea bargaining CDL cases