Ticket dismissal for CDL holder in their personal vehicle

NO! This is from the state of Missouri, however it is publishing a FMCSA opinion on Ticketmasking. FAQs - Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act (MCSIA)

 

For the record here is the part from that website I want everybody to see. Notice what I put in bold.



The state of Missouri requested clarification from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration regarding the masking provisions outlined in the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act that became effective on September 30, 2005. The following scenarios were addressed and responses published on March 20, 2006.

Note) FMCSA: Generally, for masking or diversion to occur, there first must be a judgment of guilt. For example, masking may occur when the court holds the paperwork on a conviction for some reason and does not allow the State to take appropriate action. Diversion may occur when the court allows a driver – after an adjudication of guilt – to perform alternate services such as traffic school to get the conviction erased.

Situation #1: CDL holder issued traffic citation for Driving While Intoxicated in his private vehicle. Prosecutor reviews the records and determines that there is a problem with the evidence and decides not to prosecute the case, so no charges are filed with court. No conviction is entered.

Response) FMCSA: No violation of 49 CFR §383/384. The federal CDL regulations require a conviction as defined by §383.5. In this case, the evidence did not support the burden of proof to be properly adjudicated by the prosecutor and there were no excepted actions taken to otherwise circumvent the regulations (i.e., no masking or diversion of the offense or penalty).

Situation #2: CMV operator is issued traffic citation for "Careless and Imprudent" driving. Prosecutor files charges for "Careless and Imprudent Driving". Case goes to trial and contrary evidence is presented by operator to show he was not driving in a careless and imprudent manner and court ultimately dismisses the case.

Response) FMCSA: No violation of 49 CFR §383/384. Again, the federal regulations require a conviction and in this case the court found flawed or lacking evidence to convict the driver on the offense cited. There were no excepted actions taken by the court to otherwise circumvent the regulations (i.e., no masking or diversion of the offense or penalty). Ultimately, the driver in this case received his/her day in court and prevailed.

Situation #3: CMV operator issued traffic citation for "Improper lane change in a CMV". Prior to the citation being 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.


Response) FMCSA: 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 do not prevent plea bargaining from taking place.

Situation #4: CDL holder is issued a traffic citation for "Excessive Speed" in private vehicle (speeding 75 mph in 60 mph zone). After original charge is filed with court, prosecutor amends original charge to "Speeding 65 mph in a 60 mph zone". Final conviction is for Speeding 65 mph in a 60 mph zone.

Response) FMCSA: 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 do not prevent plea bargaining from taking place.

Situation #5: CDL holder operating a non-commercial vehicle and is issued a traffic citation for "Failure to Yield Right of Way". Prosecutor files charges for "Failure to Yield Right of Way". Court convicts person of "Failure to Yield Right of Way” and the conviction is posted in the driver’s record, but allows a Driver Improvement Program in lieu of having the director assess points on the Missouri driving record.

Response) FMCSA: 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 §384.215/284.213/384.231 as a diversion deferral program.

Situation #6: CMV operator is issued a traffic citation for "Operating a CMV while Suspended/Revoked/ Withdrawn". Prosecutor files charges for "Operating CMV while license suspended/revoked/ withdrawn". Final conviction is for "Operating CMV while license suspended/revoked/withdrawn. Later, court allows attorney for CMV operator to withdraw original plea and conviction and after new court hearing, court ultimately enters a conviction for "Improper CDL Class/Endorsement".

Response) FMCSA: This is not in violation of 49 CFR §384.226 because the court vacated (withdrew) the original conviction or adjudication of guilt. By granting the attorney’s request to vacate (withdraw) the original plea and conviction, the court has nullified the conviction. The definition of “conviction” in 49 CFR §383.5 defines a conviction to mean “an unvacated adjudication of guilt”.

 

Sorry, I meant dismissing by taking a class instead, which would be classed as diversion.

I just didn't word the my response as well as I could have.

 

Thank you for correcting your meaning. However this is still not correct. §384.226 does not come into play until a conviction is entered. A Judge could decide to impose driving school and change the charge. Go read what I posted in bold in post #12..

 

I got one in my car back in March. Had the court date two weeks ago. I sat down with the DA and the best she could do for me was reduce it from 15-20 over to 10-15 over. She also reduced the fine. I told her I’d rather pay the higher fine and just get the charge changed to non moving or whatever and she said it was honestly the best she could do.

 

Hire the lawyer she plays golf with. Or shoots moose or whatever they do up there for social climbing.

 

Yes, there are some places in the US that are harder to deal then others. I heard there are some places in central Alabama that are like that. It is the best she can do under local rules most of the time.

 

I was thankful for what little she did do to help me out. The whole ordeal changed my driving habits for the better, which I’m also thankful for

 

It’s “generally” true that a conviction is required, but not always. For instance if a prosecutor offers no relief and the driver pleads guilty and the court allows him to withdraw the plea and plead to a lesser charge because of sympathy for the driver and his CDL, that’s generally considered masking.

Here is a quick reference guide from The National District Attorneys Association’s National Traffic Law Center

https://ndaa.org/pdf/Masking Quick Reference Guide.pdf

 

NO! According to the FMCSA opinion those masking provisions do not come into play until a driver holding a CDL has an adjudication of guilt on the charge. Your example is correct only in the fact the drivers guilty plea is considered a conviction. If someone is standing in front of a judge at arraignment and says guilty that is considered a conviction.