City Court of Syracuse, Onondaga County

Decided on May 20, 2026

Docket No. CR-01864-26

Shadia Tadros, J.

[*1]

Defendant submitted Motion in Limine on May 4, 2026, to permit the parties to enter into a negotiated plea agreement as Defendant has not been convicted and therefore is not yet subject to 49 CFR 384.226 (the federal "masking" law).

BACKGROUND

On February 27, 2026, Defendant Dusko Lacmanovic was charged with alleged violations of TL §§ 140-2cii (two counts). The Defendant pleaded not guilty, has not been convicted, and remains presumed innocent. One of the violations was corrected and the other violation was unsubstantiated by service report dated the same date, February 27, 2026. The District Attorney subsequently transmitted an offer requiring a plea of guilty to one count (the unsubstantiated violation) without reduction.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations [C.F.R.] § 384.226 (the federal "masking" law) provides 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, . . . from appearing on the CDLIS driver record . . . ". 49 C.F.R. § 383.5 defines the meaning of conviction as "an unvacated adjudication of guilt, or determination that a person has violated or failed to comply with the law in a court of original jurisdiction . . . ." Where the statutory language is plain, the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms, United States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235 (1989).

It is evident from the plain language in the statute that the masking law only applies to convictions. Case law supports this interpretation, including People v. Wirth, NY Misc. LEXIS 1237 (Charlotte Town Ct. 2025); People v. Atia, NY Misc. LEXIS 8499 (Rye Town Ct. 2025); and People v. Dustinazarov, 2026 NY Misc. LEXIS 1429 (Dickinson Town Ct. 2026). The federal regulations prohibit states from concealing convictions from the federal government but do not impose any requirement regarding charging decisions, plea negotiations, trial proceedings, or dismissals.

Treating a pending charge as a conviction would violate the presumption of innocence, contrary to Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478 (1978), and Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 [*2](1895). Because 49 C.F.R. § 384.226 regulates only convictions, applying it to unadjudicated charges would be unconstitutional and contrary to federal law. A blanket judicial policy rejecting plea agreements based on the masking regulation would further violate the separation of powers, as held in People v. Steger, 63 Misc 3d 815 (Wayne Cty. Ct. 2019). A judge may reject a plea agreement in an individual case for specific reasons but not based on a blanket prohibition intruding on prosecutorial discretion.

DECISION

While the People's position relies on 49 C.F.R. § 384.226, the federal "masking" law, it should be noted they have already participated in pre-conviction negotiations by offering a plea deal to charge Defendant with only one of the two issued violations. Defendant has not been convicted. There is no adjudication of guilt and therefore no "conviction" capable of being masked under 49 C.F.R. § 384.226.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that 49 C.F.R. § 384.226 does not apply to the pending charges in this case and does not bar the parties from plea negotiations.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby

ORDERED, that Defendant's motion in limine is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED, that 49 C.F.R. § 384.226 (the federal "masking" regulation) shall not be applied to the pending charges against Defendant; and it is further

ORDERED, that the parties may engage in plea negotiations and, if appropriate, enter into a plea agreement consistent with People v. Steger.

ENTER:

DATED: May 20, 2026.

HON. SHADIA TADROS

SYRACUSE CITY COURT JUDGE