State, Dept. of Transp., Motor Vehicle Div. v. Romero
Decision Date | 17 December 1987 |
Docket Number | No. 9146,9146 |
Citation | 106 N.M. 657,1987 NMCA 151,748 P.2d 30 |
Parties | STATE of New Mexico, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jesse ROMERO, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
This appeal comes before this court for decision after the case was submitted to an advisory committee pursuant to an experimental plan.SeeBoucher v. Foxworth- Galbraith Lumber Co., 105 N.M. 442, 733 P.2d 1325(Ct.App.1986).The committee unanimously recommended a decision reversing the district court.This court has considered the transcript and briefs, together with the opinion of the advisory committee.We adopt the opinion of the advisory committee, as modified.
The State of New Mexico, Transportation Department, Motor Vehicle Division(MVD), plaintiff-appellant, appeals from an order of the district court overturning MVD's decision to revoke the driver's license of defendant-appelleeJesse Romero.The issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in finding that no reasonable grounds existed for MVD's revocation of Romero's license to drive, based on the record of the administrative proceeding.Because we determine that reasonable grounds did exist in the record, we reverse.
An Espanola police officer arrested Romero for driving while intoxicated.Probable cause for the arrest is not an issue.After arresting Romero, the officer explained the implied consent law and advised Romero that a failure to take the breath test could result in the revocation of his driver's license.
Romero attempted three times to blow up the balloon.He first blew up the balloon to approximately one and one-half inches, the size of a "dollar coin."The officer explained that the balloon had to be inflated twelve to fourteen inches in diameter for the test to be effective.Romero failed to blow up the balloon on the next two tries and told the officer he could not fully inflate the balloon because of pain he felt from an injury he had received to his foot.After Romero failed on the third try, the officer stated that he would consider Romero's actions a refusal to take the test.The officer administered no other tests.
At the revocation hearing, Romero testified that he recently had a nerve between the bones in his foot surgically removed, and that his foot had been surgically broken and reset.He introduced into evidence a letter from his physician, Dr. Bell, that stated in relevant part: "It is possible that blowing on a balloon might cause pain in Jesse's feet having had surgery on them in the past 6 months, although the mechanism of such pain is unclear."
The MVD hearing officer concluded that the state had met its burden of establishing the statutory requirements for revocation of a driver's license and the state met the burden of proving that Romero refused to take the test without good cause.The hearing officer ordered a one-year revocation of Romero's driver's license.
Romero appealed the decision to the First Judicial District Court, which reversed the hearing officer's decision and reinstated Romero's driver's license.The district court found from the administrative record that Romero had undergone foot surgery; that he had notified the arresting officer of the surgery; the prior surgery inhibited Romero's efforts to blow up the balloon; Romero had attempted to blow up the balloon three times; and, despite the extenuating circumstances, the officer did not attempt to give Romero a blood-alcohol test.Central to the district court's decision was its conclusion that the state had failed to meet its burden of proof that Romero had refused to submit to the test.It also concluded that, in view of the circumstances, the officer should have made an effort to administer a blood-alcohol test.
In reviewing a hearing officer's decision to revoke a driver's license, the district court does not conduct a de novo review.On appeal, "it is for the [district] court to determine only whether reasonable grounds exist for revocation or denial of the person's license or privilege to drive * * * * "NMSA 1978, Sec. 66-8-112(G)(Repl.Pamp.1987).Reasonable grounds include:
(1) the law enforcement officer must have had reasonable grounds to believe that the person was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle within this state while under the influence of intoxicating liquor; (2) the person must have been under arrest; (3) the person must have refused to submit to a chemical test upon request of the law enforcement officer[;] and (4) the law enforcement officer must have advised that the failure to submit to a test could result in revocation of his privilege to drive.
State, Dep't of Motor Vehicles v. Gober, 85 N.M. 457, 459, 513 P.2d 391, 393(1973)(emphasis added).
The standard of review for appeals from administrative agencies is whether substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the agency's decision.In re Electrical Serv. in San Miguel County, 102 N.M. 529, 697 P.2d 948(1985);Duke City Lumber Co. v. New Mexico Envtl. Improvement Bd., 101 N.M. 291, 681 P.2d 717(1984).Substantial evidence is " 'such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.' "New Mexico Human Servs. Dep't v. Garcia, 94 N.M. 175, 177, 608 P.2d 151, 153(1980)(quotingQuinlan v. Bd. of Ed. of North Bergen Tp., 73 N.J.Super. 40, 46, 179 A.2d 161, 164(1962))."Substantial evidence in an administrative agency review requires whole record review, not a review limited to those findings most favorable to the agency order."Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. New Mexico State Corp. Comm'n, 101 N.M. 470, 477, 684 P.2d 1135, 1142(1984).
Where a difference or conflict in the evidence exists, a court should not substitute its opinion for that of the administrative agency.Public Serv. Co. of N.M. v. New Mexico Envtl. Improvement Bd., 89 N.M. 223, 549 P.2d 638(Ct.App.1976).We presume the agency's determination is correct.New Mexico Human Servs. Dep't v. Garcia.
Substantial evidence supports the hearing officer's determination that Romero refused to submit to a breath test.In the instant case, the district court substituted its opinion for that of the hearing officer as to the findings of fact.In doing so, the district court erred.
The Implied Consent Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 66-8-105 to -112 (Repl.Pamp.1987), "is intended to deter driving while intoxicated and to aid in discovering and removing the intoxicated driver from the highway."McKay v. Davis, 99 N.M. 29, 30, 653 P.2d 860, 861(1982)."Any person who operates a motor vehicle within this state shall be deemed to have given consent * * * to chemical tests of his breath or blood, as determined by a law enforcement officer * * * * "Sec. 66-8-107(A)."A test of blood or breath shall be administered at the discretion of a law enforcement officer having reasonable grounds to believe the person to have been driving a motor vehicle within this state while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug."Sec. 66-8-107(B).The Implied Consent Act authorizes the revocation of a person's New Mexico driver's license for a period of one year for refusal to submit to a breath test.Sec. 66-8-111(B).
Whether there is a refusal to submit to a breath test is a question of fact, not of law.Burke v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 381 N.W.2d 903(Minn.App.1986);...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
State v. Suazo
... ... See State Dep't of Transp., Motor Vehicle Div. v. Romero, 106 N.M. 657, ... ...
-
Fugere v. State, Taxation and Revenue Dept., Motor Vehicle Div.
... ... On November 28, 1993, Fugere was stopped by Officer Roger Romero of the Santa Fe Police Department. Officer Romero stopped Fugere for failing to maintain his lane, accelerating rapidly, clipping a median, ... State, Dep't. of Transp., Motor Vehicle Div. v. Romero, 106 N.M. 657, 658-59, 748 P.2d 30, 31-32 (Ct.App.1987) (quoting State, Dep't. of Motor Vehicles v. Gober, 85 N.M ... ...
-
Ryan v. State
... ... and REVENUE DEPARTMENT, MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION, Appellee-Petitioner ... NO ... See Romero v. Rio Arriba Cnty. Comm'rs, 2007-NMCA-004, ¶ ... agency's decision." Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 101 N.M. 470, 476, ... 's decision." Dep't of Transp., Motor Vehicle Div. v. Romero, 106 N.M. 657, 659, 748 P.2d 30, 32 ... ...
-
Montoya v. New Mexico Human Services Dept., Income Support Div., 10156
... ... State Dep't of Transp., Motor Vehicle Div. v. Romero, 106 N.M ... ...