A Syracuse City Court judge has ruled that plea negotiations can proceed in the case of Dusko Lacmanovic, who faces charges related to traffic violations. The decision, made by Judge Shadia Tadros on May 20, 2026, clarifies the application of federal regulations regarding the masking of convictions, which could significantly affect how similar cases are handled in the future.
The ruling comes as Lacmanovic, who has not yet been convicted, seeks to negotiate a plea agreement. This case is particularly important because it addresses the intersection of state and federal laws concerning driver’s license violations and the presumption of innocence.
Background
The case involves Dusko Lacmanovic, who was charged with two counts of traffic violations on February 27, 2026. He pleaded not guilty and remains presumed innocent as the case progresses. One of the charges was resolved, while the other was deemed unsubstantiated by a service report from the same day.
The prosecution, represented by the District Attorney's office, offered a plea deal that required Lacmanovic to plead guilty to the unsubstantiated violation. However, Lacmanovic's defense sought a motion in limine, which is a request to limit or exclude certain evidence or arguments, to allow for plea negotiations without the constraints of federal masking laws.
This case reached the Syracuse City Court due to the complexities surrounding the federal regulations that govern how states handle convictions for commercial driver’s license (CDL) holders. Specifically, the federal law in question, 49 CFR 384.226, prohibits states from masking or deferring judgments related to violations that could affect a CDL holder's record.
The Ruling
In her ruling, Judge Shadia Tadros granted Lacmanovic's motion, stating that the federal masking law applies only to actual convictions, not to pending charges. She emphasized, "There is no adjudication of guilt and therefore no 'conviction' capable of being masked under 49 C.F.R. § 384.226." This interpretation allows the defendant to engage in plea negotiations without the fear of having a conviction obscured from his driving record.
The court also highlighted the importance of maintaining the presumption of innocence, noting that treating pending charges as convictions would violate this principle. Judge Tadros referenced previous case law to support her decision, stating that a blanket prohibition against plea agreements based on the masking regulation would infringe upon prosecutorial discretion.
Judge Tadros concluded that the application of the federal regulation to the current case was inappropriate, stating, "The parties may engage in plea negotiations and, if appropriate, enter into a plea agreement consistent with People v. Steger." This ruling sets a precedent for how similar cases might be handled in the future, particularly regarding the rights of defendants who have not yet been convicted.
Impact
The court's decision has significant implications for both defendants and prosecutors in New York and potentially beyond. By allowing plea negotiations to continue, the ruling preserves the rights of defendants who are still presumed innocent and clarifies the limitations of federal regulations concerning state-level plea agreements.
This ruling could influence future cases involving CDL holders and traffic violations, as it establishes that federal masking laws do not apply until a conviction occurs. It may also encourage more defendants to pursue plea agreements without the fear of long-term consequences on their driving records, as the court has reinforced the importance of the presumption of innocence in the legal process.
What's Next
Following this ruling, the case will proceed with the possibility of plea negotiations between the parties involved. It remains to be seen whether Lacmanovic will accept a plea deal or proceed to trial. There is no indication in the court filing that this decision will be appealed, and no related cases were mentioned.