Improving Highway Safety: How to Avoid “Masking” Convictions of Commercial Driver’s License Holders

Need for Extensive Regulation of CDL Holders

Commercial motor vehicles, their carriers, and their drivers are extensively regulated by state and federal laws and regulations to help ensure highway safety. In 2019, the U.S. Bureau of Labor projected that 2,029,900 heavy-duty truck and tractor-trailer drivers would be traveling on our highways. Most of these drivers must possess CDL licenses that require them to operate in multiple states and drive through several state and territorial jurisdictions. The public rightfully expects and trusts government and industry to work together to uphold laws and regulations and promote public safety objectives. When courtrelated stakeholders collect data, said data collection must be accurate. Court-related stakeholders must avoid any delays in processing information about convictions. If court-related stakeholders were to disregard federal and state mandatory laws or regulations in favor of leniency to offending CDL holders, serious implications with tragic consequences would have occurred, affecting highway safety and thereby violating the public’s trust. Stakeholders cannot provide any “breaks” or “cut any breaks” to any CDL license holders who request leniency for the sake of their families or other extenuating circumstances.

Congressional Findings

Faced with an ever-increasing number of fatalities from large commercial vehicle crashes, Congress held hearings in the early to mid-1980s, and significant findings were made:

• No classified driver licensing system existed in 18 states;
• Of the remaining 32 states, only 12 required CDL holders to pass skills tests;
• Widespread use of multiple CDL licenses complicated matters, created chaos, and interfered with making CDL holders accountable; and
• No network existed to track serious CDL holder violators.

Consequently, in 1986, Congress adopted the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act (CMVSA). The CMVSA aims to prevent commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers from concealing unsafe driving records by carrying licenses from more than one state, thereby creating and implementing the rule of one driver, one license, and one record. The CMVSA ensures all CMV drivers demonstrate at least the minimum levels of knowledge and skills needed to operate CMV carriers before receiving licenses to operate their vehicles or vehicle fleets and will subject their drivers to uniform sanctions for certain unsafe driving practices.

What Does “Masking” Entail?

Masking is defined as a court disposition of a CMV traffic violation that prevents the violation or the conviction from being reported on the CDL/commercial learner’s permit (CLP) holder’s driving record. In criminal law, “masking” is defined as “the practice or an instance of a defendant’s agreeing by plea bargain to plead guilty to a less serious offense than the one criminally charged, as by pleading guilty to parking on the curb when one has been charged with speeding in a school zone.”

In traffic court, “masking” is any act that would prevent a “conviction” from appearing on the CDL holder’s driver record in the Commercial Driver’s License Information System (CDLIS). Technically, “masking” means any act preventing a “conviction” from being entered, such as a diversion program or a deferral. The basic “masking” prohibitions are as follows: The federal statute prohibits “masking” convictions to conceal, modify, or elude discovery of that conviction. A conviction is defined as a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) accepted by the court; a payment of a fine or court costs; or a violation of the condition of release without bail, regardless of whether the penalty is rebated, suspended, or probated.

Federal regulation 49 C.F.R. § 384.226 prohibits “masking” of CDL holders’ 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.

The above federal reference to the “State” refers to court-related stakeholders and includes, but is not limited to, prosecutors, defense counsel, judges, traffic court officers, court clerks, probation officers, and court record keepers. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration disseminates the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations through the Code of Federal Regulations. Every state and the District of Columbia has now adopted this masking prohibition either by reference or through direct language in their state laws. The Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators’ December 2024 whitepaper Felony Convictions and CDL Sanctions addresses CDL-related violations with which many stakeholders are unfamiliar, specifically nondriving offenses, that carry mandatory CDL sanctions to promote highway safety. Such crimes may or may not occur during actual movement or driving of motor vehicles.

The Role of the Commercial Driver’s License Information System

The CDLIS was established by the Federal Highway Administration pursuant to § 12007 of the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986, based on Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations in 49 C.F.R. §§ 383 and 384. CDLIS is a nationwide computer system enabling state driver licensing agencies (SDLAs) to ensure each commercial driver has only one driver’s license and one complete driver record. Agencies use CDLIS to complete CDL procedures such as transmitting out-of-state convictions and withdrawals, transferring driver records when CDL holders move to another state, and responding to requests for driver status and history.

Consistent with the concept of transparency in the courts, court-related stakeholders must accurately report convictions on the CDL holders’ records, especially convictions related to impaired driving. Keeping accurate records of CDL holders promotes accountability for the offenders’ actions. Moreover, these federal laws apply whether the CDL holders were convicted for offenses committed in their home states where the drivers are licensed or in any state where CDL holders have traveled. Moreover, these laws and regulations apply when CDL holders are driving any type of vehicle, including their own personal vehicles, when violations occur.

Defining “Convictions”

Conviction is defined as “an unvacated adjudication of guilt, or a determination that a person has violated or failed to comply with the law in a court of original jurisdiction or by an authorized administrative tribunal, an unvacated forfeiture of bail or collateral deposited to secure the person’s appearance in court, a plea of guilty or nolo contendere accepted by the court, the payment of a fine or court cost, or violation of a condition of release without bail, regardless of whether or not the penalty is rebated, suspended, or probated.” Severe federal sanctions apply to each state where its court-related stakeholders fail to abide by these federal laws.

Phases I and II of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) also has created a Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse, which went into effect on January 6, 2021, as Phase I of its latest safety project. This Clearinghouse is a secure online database that tracks and records violations of the FMCSA’s drug and alcohol testing program for CDL and CLP holders. The Clearinghouse’s aim is to improve roadway safety by identifying drivers who are ineligible to operate a CMV due to drug and alcohol violations. The Clearinghouse requires the following entities to report information to the database: FMCSA-regulated employers, medical review officers, substance abuse professionals, and consortia/third-party administrators. The FMCSA also has targeted commercial truck drivers with drug violations to improve road safety. Under this updated regulation, drivers who fail drug tests or violate drug-related regulations now face losing their CDLs. Phase I’s goal is to reduce the number of fatal truck accidents caused by impaired CDL holders.

The FMCSA’s Drug & Alcohol Clearinghouse, known as Clearinghouse Phase II, means stricter enforcement measures effective November 18, 2024. Phase II requires SDLAs to suspend commercial driving privileges for CDL and CLP holders with unresolved drug or alcohol violations. Drivers will remain off the road until they complete the return-to-duty process. Building on Phase I, Phase II will strengthen highway safety measures by keeping prohibited-status drivers off our highways and roads.

Drug-Impaired CDL Holders

Drug-impaired CDL holders significantly impact highway safety. When CDL holders are impaired by either drugs or alcohol, that impairment severely compromises those drivers’ abilities to operate their vehicles safely. Drug impairment affects CDL holders’ reflexes, thereby causing life-threatening consequences on highways and roads. Moreover, large trucks require more attention due to their commercial vehicles having many blind spots. The quintessential impact of drug impairment on truck drivers includes, but is not limited to, the following:

• Drug impairment leads to reduced reaction times where impaired truckers have slower reflexes and are unable to react quickly to sudden changes on the roads, where stopped vehicles and other unexpected obstacles occur. Complicating these situations is the longer time CDL holders already have in braking for smaller vehicles.
• Drug-impaired judgment obscures decision-making abilities, leading to dangerous choices regarding speeding, unsafe lane changes, or overlooking serious road conditions.
• Drug impairment results in the loss of coordination in that basic maneuvers are elevated to hazardous levels when impaired CDL holders lack vital precise motor skills.
• Drug impairment causes fatigue and drowsiness, leading to fatal accidents. Drug-impaired CDL holders struggle to keep alert and will miss crucial traffic signals or road signs, resulting in fatal collisions.

Prohibition Against Masking Does Not Prevent Appropriate Plea Bargains

The prohibition against masking does not prevent appropriate plea bargains or case dismissals involving CDL-holder traffic convictions. The concept of masking does not apply to charges not provable to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt and cannot supersede constitutionally protected rights and due process. However, the other side of the coin is that plea negotiations and charge reductions must not be provided to CDL holders where the offenses were charged in good faith and are supported by available admissible case facts, evidence, and law. Court-related stakeholders must be mindful that CDL charges must not be reduced unless bona fide legal or factual proof of problems exists with the original charges.

Serious Sanctions for Masking

Serious sanctions exist when court-related stakeholders participate in the act of masking, whether solely by the judge or jointly by a judge and prosecutor or by the court clerks as to submitted pleas/diversion/deferral. When a state is federally audited and found to have authorized or committed CDL masking violations, that state’s federal highway funding can be reduced by 4 percent for the first year by the noncompliance audit sanction and reduced up to 8 percent for every following year of continuing noncompliance. In Nevada, for example, the latest federal infrastructure funding bill for Nevada highways, over the next five years, is $2.5 billion. Four percent or 8 percent of a multibillion-dollar funding bill can be significant amounts of highway money lost by the states for failing to follow federal mandates. Additional sanctions also can be levied, such as the suspension of an offending state’s privilege and the ability to issue CDLs if said masking is not corrected in a timely manner on the driving records. Ethical rules are violated by masking, and resulting consequences for breach of ethics can be imposed for masking.

How the NJC Provides Support to Avoid Masking

There are many other aspects of masking that court stakeholders must be aware of. Through the National Judicial College (NJC), judicial ambassadors are assigned to provide and present educational courses to explain and illustrate the application of this federal masking statute as well as the pertinent nuances regarding each state’s statute. The FMCSA provides this assistance to court stakeholders in applying statutory law at no cost to the courts or the states. FMCSA has designated the NJC to provide educational courses to court stakeholders. The NJC, in turn, trains judges as judicial ambassadors to teach the intricacies of this law, and each judicial ambassador is assigned to a group of four to five states to educate the various stakeholders of each state on masking. The NJC, at no charge to your jurisdiction, has federal grant funding opportunities through the FMCSA and will assign judicial ambassadors to educate the judges and other stakeholders in your jurisdiction on numerous other highway safety and cutting-edge topics that include, but are not limited to, human trafficking, artificial intelligence, and other related areas. The following judges are the 2025 Judicial Ambassadors with their relevant contact information by the state regions they are assigned to serve:

• Judge Jason Ashford of Centerville, Georgia: [email protected] and serving Region 4, which encompasses the states TN, AL, GA, SC, FL, and NC.
• Judge Barbara Brown of Colorado City, Arizona: [email protected] and serving Region 9, which encompasses the states CA, AZ, and HI.
• Judge Stephanie Domitrovich of Erie, Pennsylvania: [email protected] and serving Region 6, which encompasses the states NM, OK, TX, LA, and MS.
• Judge Thomas Fowler of Jonesboro, Arkansas: [email protected] and serving Region 7, which encompasses the states NE, KS, IA, MO, and AR.
• Judge Gary Graber of Darien Center, New York: [email protected] and serving Region 3, which encompasses the states MD, DE, DC, VA, WV, and KY.
• Judge Anita Laster-Mays of Cleveland, Ohio: [email protected] and serving Region 5, which encompasses the states MN, WI, MI, IL, IN, and OH.
• Judge Larry Sage of Sparks, Nevada: [email protected] and serving Region 8, which encompasses the states ND, SD, WY, NV, UT, and CO.
• Judge Barbara Seelbach of Clinton Corners, New York: [email protected] and serving Region 2, which encompasses the states NY, PA, CT, and NJ.
• Judge Jonah Triebwasser of Red Hook, New York: [email protected] and serving Region 1, which encompasses the states VT, ME, NH, MA, and RI.
• Judge Gerri Wybo of Home, Kansas: [email protected] and serving Region 10, which encompasses the states WA, OR, ID, MT, and AK.

In conclusion, a strong causal link exists between CMV drivers who commit intentional, negligent, or distracted moving violations and serious, tragic outcomes. “Masking” can be a very complicated concept, and comprehending the implementation of masking is indeed integral to highway safety. The partnership between the FMCSA and the NJC ensures that court-related stakeholders comprehend the mandatory laws by obtaining the necessary education to implement federal and state-related laws and regulations properly. Failure to follow these highway safety laws can potentially result in serious repercussions for offending states. The NJC judicial ambassadors stand committed to providing the necessary education to court-related stakeholders and their states. The NJC judicial ambassadors remain accessible, ready, and willing to assist.