City of Santa Fe ex rel. Santa Fe Police Dep't v. One (1) Black 2006 Jeep 2–Door V.I.N. 1J4fa6456p731037 N.M. License No. 001 PND

• Decision Date: 26 January 2012
• Docket Number: No. 30,660.,30,660.
• Citation: 286 P.3d 1223
• Parties: CITY OF SANTA FE ex rel. SANTA FE POLICE DEPARTMENT, Petitioner–Appellant, v. ONE (1) BLACK 2006 JEEP 2–DOOR V.I.N. 1J4FA6456P731037 NEW MEXICO LICENSE NO. 001 PND, Respondent, and Americredit Financial Services, Claimant, and Diego Olivas, Claimant–Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

286 P.3d 1223

CITY OF SANTA FE ex rel. SANTA FE POLICE DEPARTMENT, Petitioner–Appellant,

v. ONE (1) BLACK 2006 JEEP 2–DOOR V.I.N. 1J4FA6456P731037 NEW MEXICO LICENSE NO. 001 PND, Respondent,andAmericredit Financial Services, Claimant,andDiego Olivas, Claimant–Appellee.

No. 30,660.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

Jan. 26, 2012.

R. Alfred Walker, Assistant City Attorney, Adrian Terry, Assistant City Attorney, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant.

Cuddy & McCarthy, L.L.P., Aaron J. Wolf, Santa Fe, NM, for Claimant–Appellee.

OPINION

VANZI, Judge.

{1} The City of Santa Fe (City) appeals from an order of the district court dismissing the City's petition for forfeiture and directing it to return the motor vehicle at issue in this case to Claimant, Diego Olivas. The district court concluded that the City's vehicle forfeiture ordinance, Santa Fe, N.M., Code § 24–9 SFCC 1987 (2007) (the Ordinance), permittingforfeiture of a vehicle operated by a person whose license is revoked as a result of a prior DWI conviction did not apply to Olivas's conduct. In a matter of first impression, the sole issue on appeal is whether a vehicle operated by a person whose license has been revoked as a result of a conviction for driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol (DWI) but was eligible for reinstatement prior to the time of the traffic stop that led to the forfeiture action, but who failed to obtain reinstatement of the license before the stop, is subject to the Ordinance. We hold that the Ordinance does not make any exceptions for drivers who, though they may be eligible for reinstatement, continue to drive on a revoked license. We reverse the district court.

BACKGROUND

{2} The following facts are undisputed. On February 25, 2010, Diego Olivas was driving his 2006 Jeep within City limits when he was stopped and cited for a traffic violation. At the time he was stopped, Olivas's license was revoked as a result of a conviction for DWI.

{3} Olivas committed the DWI on February 17, 2008, and he was convicted for the offense on May 22, 2008. On March 8, 2008, the Motor Vehicle Division of the New Mexico Department of Taxation and Revenue (MVD) revoked Olivas's driver's license. The MVD mailed Olivas a notice of revocation on July 9, 2008, informing Olivas that his license had been revoked for a minimum of one year and that he was eligible to have his license reinstated on March 8, 2009. The revocation notice advised Olivas that reinstatement at the end of the revocation period was not automatic and that he had to meet certain requirements, including payment of a reinstatement fee.

{4} Although he was eligible to have his driving privileges restored, Olivas had not paid the $100 reinstatement fee. Consequently, when he committed the traffic violation on February 25, 2010, Olivas was cited for the violation and was arrested for driving with a revoked license. The officer then impounded Olivas's vehicle as a nuisance under the Ordinance. Santa Fe, N.M., Code §§ 24–9.3(B), 24–9.4.

{5} On April 12, 2010, the City filed a verified petition for forfeiture of motor vehicle. Olivas filed an answer and, on June 29, 2010, the district court held a hearing on the merits. At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court denied the City's application for forfeiture and dismissed the petition. The district court concluded that the failure to pay a reinstatement fee was merely a pro forma requirement that did not justify the forfeiture of Olivas's vehicle and ordered the City to immediately return the vehicle to him.

{6} The City timely appealed. We note that on appeal we are without the benefit of an answer brief as Olivas has filed a notice of non-filing of answer brief, asserting that he sold the vehicle and no longer has a continued interest in the outcome of this matter.

DISCUSSIONStandard of Review

{7} “When there are no disputed material facts, an appellate court reviews all issues on appeal under a de novo standard of review.” City of Albuquerque v. One (1) 1984 White Chevy, 2002–NMSC–014, ¶ 5, 132 N.M. 187, 46 P.3d 94. “Interpretation of municipal ordinances and statutes is a question of law that we review de novo.” Stennis v. City of Santa Fe, 2008–NMSC–008, ¶ 13, 143 N.M. 320, 176 P.3d 309. We follow the same rules of statutory interpretation when interpreting ordinances. Cadena v. Bernalillo Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 2006–NMCA–036, ¶ 7, 139 N.M. 300, 131 P.3d 687. The guiding principle in statutory construction requires that we look to the wording of the statute and attempt to apply “the plain meaning rule, recognizing that when a statute contains language which is clear and unambiguous, we must give effect to that language and refrain from further statutory interpretation.” Truong v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2010–NMSC–009, ¶ 37, 147 N.M. 583, 227 P.3d 73 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted); State v. Johnson, 2009–NMSC–049, ¶ 10, 147 N.M. 177, 218 P.3d 863 (“The primary indicator of legislative intent is the plain language of the statute.”). Accordingly, “a statute must be read and given effect as it is written by the Legislature,not as the court may think it should be or would have been written if the Legislature had envisaged all the problems and complications which might arise in the course of its administration.” State v. Maestas, 2007–NMSC–001, ¶ 14, 140 N.M. 836, 149 P.3d 933 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). With these principles in mind, we now turn to the City's argument in this case.

The Ordinance Applies to a Vehicle Operated by a Person Whose License Is Currently Revoked for DWI and Who Has Not Met All the Requirements for Reinstatement

{8} The City asserts that once Olivas's driving privileges were revoked for DWI, they remained revoked until he took affirmative steps and met all the requirements for reinstatement. The City argues that because Olivas failed to have his driver's license reinstated, his vehicle was subject to forfeiture pursuant to the Ordinance. Thus, the City contends, the district court erred in finding that the Ordinance did not apply to Olivas's conduct and in ordering the return of the vehicle to him. We agree. We begin with a review of Section 24–9 and then turn to the question of whether a driver's failure to pay a reinstatement fee is merely “a pro forma requirement” of the MVD that does not justify the forfeiture of a vehicle operated by that person under the Ordinance.

{9} In 2007, the City's governing body adopted the Ordinance with the intent of protecting the health and safety of its citizens by abating motor vehicle nuisances. Santa Fe, N.M., Code § 24–9.2(A). Specifically, the City enacted the Ordinance in response to the serious problems caused by those who drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs or “who drive in violation of driver's license restrictions” and therefore create the potential for serious injury and loss of life to innocent persons. Id. The City determined that the way to achieve the objective of keeping alcohol- and drug-impaired drivers off the roadways is to subject the vehicle they are driving to forfeiture if they are caught driving with a revoked license because of a previous DWI conviction. See Santa Fe, N.M., Code § 24–9.3 (declaring as a nuisance a motor vehicle that is “[o]perated by a person who is arrested for DWI or operated by a person whose license is currently revoked or denied as a result of a DWI arrest”); Santa Fe, N.M., Code § 24–9.4 (stating that motor vehicles declared to be a nuisance are subject to forfeiture by the City). There is no constitutional challenge to the Ordinance here. We note that our Supreme Court has previously upheld the constitutionality of a similar forfeiture ordinance on the ground that it did not violate double jeopardy, indicating that the ordinance was “a remedial measure [designed] to protect the public from those drivers who persist in driving after license revocation and multiple DWI offenses.” One (1) 1984 White Chevy, 2002–NMSC–014, ¶ 18, 132 N.M. 187, 46 P.3d 94.

{10} In this case, the MVD revoked Olivas's license on March 8, 2008, as a result of a DWI conviction. Although the one-year revocation period had passed, Olivas had not paid the reinstatement fee. Thus, the City argues, Olivas drove his vehicle on City streets while his license was “currently revoked or denied as a result of a DWI arrest or conviction prohibiting [him] from driving[.]” Santa Fe, N.M., Code § 24–9.3(B). As a result, his vehicle was determined to be a nuisance and subject to civil forfeiture. The district court, however, found otherwise. It concluded that the Ordinance, as written, was “draconian in certain circumstances and is not meeting the public purpose for which it was enacted.” Accordingly, the district court held:

The Ordinance does not apply to [Olivas's] conduct, in that his license was on revoked status...