Cases

Rivera v. Department of Administration (2025)

A commercial driver who committed a traffic offense while holding a CDL could not avoid mandatory disqualification by surrendering or downgrading the license before adjudication. The Alaska Supreme Court held that eligibility for disqualification hinges on the driver’s status at the time of the offense, reinforcing federal objectives to hold CDL holders to higher safety standards and prevent evasion through administrative loopholes.

Brockway v. State, Not Reported in P.3d (2011)

Police officer had probable cause to believe that defendant was driving a commercial motor vehicle in violation of the law, and thus officer’s traffic stop of defendant was lawful. Officer testified that he was trained and experienced in enforcing Alaska’s commercial motor vehicle laws, and that he had stopped vehicles similar in size and proportions to the one defendant was driving that had been rated over the 10,001 pound threshold. Officer’s estimate was close, in that defendant’s truck’s gross vehicle rating was 9,990 pounds. Officer’s belief that the truck was a commercial motor vehicle was supported by evidence that the truck was registered to what appeared to be a commercial business. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4.

Burnett v. State, 264 P.3d 607 (2011)

Defendant was convicted in the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, Bethel, Dennis P. Cummings, J., of driving under the influence. He appealed. Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Mannheimer, J., held that: [1] defendant’s spinning of his vehicle’s tires did not create reasonable suspicion that defendant had committed negligent driving; [2] stop of defendant’s vehicle was not justified under community caretaker doctrine; and [3] spinning of vehicle’s tires, without more, did not support a reasonable suspicion that defendant was driving while intoxicated. Reversed.

Charles Lee Davis v. State of Alaska, 235 P.3d 1017 (Alaska Ct. App. 2010)

Defendant argued that the State had no authority to enforce the federal law regulating commercial motor vehicles. The appellate court found that the adopted portions of the federal regulations were now state law and were enforced by various state agencies. By expressly adopting the pertinent portions of the federal regulations and revising them as necessary to apply them to Alaska roadways, the State Department of Transportation acted consistently with its statutory authority and the legislature’s objective. The evidence showed that defendant was operating a commercial motor vehicle where defendant presented no evidence that his vehicle was exempt from the state regulations because it was used “exclusively” for non-commercial purposes. Defendant was using his tractor-trailer to haul property belonging to another person or persons. Even if he did not receive monetary compensation, defendant was engaged in activities that were incidental to and done in furtherance of his business. Defendant did not show that the State failed to turn over exculpatory evidence, nor did he show that he was prejudiced in any way. Defendant was not entitled to a jury trial. The judgment was affirmed.

Clifford C. Haywood v. State of Alaska, 193 P.3d 1203 (Alaska Ct. App. 2008)

Before the trial court and on appeal, defendant argued that former Alaska Stat. § 28.33.140 did not authorize the revocation of a commercial driver’s license for a conviction of driving under the influence unless the motorist was operating a commercial vehicle at the time of the offense. On review, the court held that former Alaska Stat. § 28.33.140 did not allow the disqualification of a commercial driver’s license for a conviction involving a non-commercial motor vehicle. Because Alaska Stat. § 28.33.140(a) and (b) were reasonably susceptible of two contradictory interpretations–one allowing revocation of a commercial license upon a conviction for driving a private vehicle while under the influence and a second allowing revocation only if the conviction for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence was committed while driving a commercial vehicle–the statute was ambiguous. Under the rule of lenity, resolution of the ambiguity required adoption of the meaning most favorable to defendant. The portion of the district court judgment disqualifying defendant from driving a commercial motor vehicle was vacated. The remainder of the judgment was affirmed.

Varilek v. State, Not Reported in P.2d (1995)

A jury convicted Larry Varilek of driving a commercial motor vehicle without a commercial driver’s license, a class A misdemeanor. AS 28.33.150(a)(1). Varilek appeals, contending that District Court Judge Peter G. Ashman should have suppressed the evidence arising from an unlawful search of his vehicle by a commercial vehicle enforcement officer whose commission as a special officer had temporarily lapsed. Varilek also contends that Judge Ashman incorrectly instructed the jury on the evidence required to establish that Varilek had been driving a “commercial motor vehicle.” Affirmed.

Cluff v. State, Not Reported in P.2d (1993)

A jury convicted Leland S. Cluff of driving a commercial motor vehicle without a commercial driver’s license, a class A misdemeanor. AS 28.33.150(a)(1). Cluff appeals his conviction, raising three related contentions: that his conduct was not prohibited by AS 28.33 .150; that AS 28.33.150 is vague if it is construed to prohibit his conduct; and that there was insufficient evidence at trial to support his conviction under AS 28.33.150. Affirmed.

Statutes

Adoption of Federal Regulations

  • No reference ( Regulations cited in Alaska Law as indicated)

What Constitutes a CMV

Major Disqualifying Offenses

Major Disqualifying Offenses (Alcohol)

Serious Traffic Offenses

Identification of Conviction

Masking Convictions

10-Day Posting Requirement

Railroad Crossings (Disqualification)

Out of Service Orders (Disqualification)

Miscellaneous Licensing Regulations

 

Resources

News

Broadcast Library

Traffic Jam: How Commercial Drivers Impact Human Trafficking

Course Description:

Judges across all dockets may encounter trafficking-related cases without recognizing them as such. These cases can appear under the guise of routine traffic violations, civil disputes, or low-level criminal charges, yet they may involve key indicators of exploitation and coercion.

This webcast provides judges with the knowledge to identify and respond to trafficking within the context of commercial transportation. It explores federal and state laws, highlights real-world scenarios, and offers practical guidance for spotting red flags, addressing misconceptions, and supporting victims through informed judicial action.

Understanding the intersection of human trafficking and CMVs is not optional—it is essential. Judicial awareness and leadership play a critical role in disrupting exploitation and advancing justice in every courtroom.

Course Objectives:

After this course, participants will be able to:

• Identify and define the forms and prevalence of human trafficking;
• Develop techniques to respond to human trafficking cases; and
• Understand the unique laws governing CDL holders facing trafficking charges.

Fundamentals of “Masking” and Suspensions for CDL Holders in Traffic and Criminal Courts

Course Description:

The practice of “masking” violations or the unwarranted reduction of charges for Commercial Drivers in Traffic and Criminal Courts across America is fairly common. When CDL drivers are afforded these opportunities, they often lead to less safe roads and highways for all drivers and passengers. Additionally, the likelihood of more crashes involving CDL holders is increased, which often leads to severe injury or death. To combat this challenge, it is necessary for judges, as the guardrails of the judicial system, to be aware of the basic rules which govern CDL holders by reporting convictions and imposing license suspensions where required by law. This course will provide judges the necessary information and tools to identify, address and combat and respond to “masking” when cases appear in the courtroom.

Course Objectives:

After this course, participants will be able to:

  • Identify applicable Federal and state CDL/CMV laws;

  • Determine what constitutes “masking”;

  • Discover the unique definition of a “conviction” under CDL/CMV laws;

  • Summarize the major components related to Access to Justice;

  • Hone techniques designed to improve in-court caseflow management and identify CDL cases with potential masking problems;

  • Balance Procedural Fairness concerns to avoid federal masking violations;

  • Develop ethical and efficient procedures for handling of CDL/CMV cases in their courts.