This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Respondent's driver's license was revoked under the Implied Consent Act after being arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI) on January 18, 1998. A breath test revealed an alcohol concentration of 0.17. The Respondent requested a hearing within the statutory ten-day period, but the hearing was delayed multiple times, ultimately occurring 124 days after the notice of revocation (paras 1-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, Bernalillo County: The court reversed the Motor Vehicle Division's (MVD) decision to revoke the Respondent's license, holding that the revocation hearing was not held within the mandatory ninety-day period required by the Implied Consent Act (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (MVD): Argued that the Respondent had waived the ninety-day statutory time limit by requesting continuances and stipulating that delays caused by such requests would not violate the Act (para 1).
- Respondent (Driver): Contended that the ninety-day time limit under the Implied Consent Act is mandatory and cannot be waived, and that the MVD lost jurisdiction by failing to hold the hearing within the prescribed period (paras 1, 5-6).
Legal Issues
- Can the statutory ninety-day time limit for holding a license revocation hearing under the Implied Consent Act be waived by the driver?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision, holding that the ninety-day time limit is mandatory and cannot be waived (para 1).
Reasons
Per Bustamante J. (Sutin and Kennedy JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the ninety-day time limit for holding a revocation hearing under the Implied Consent Act is clear, mandatory, and cannot be waived by the driver (paras 1, 11, 15-16). The statutory language explicitly requires that hearings be held within ninety days, and any failure to meet this requirement precludes the MVD from revoking a driver's license (paras 11, 16).
The Court rejected the MVD's argument that the Respondent's stipulations constituted a valid waiver. It reasoned that allowing such waivers would undermine the legislative intent of the Act, which prioritizes expedited proceedings to protect public safety by promptly removing intoxicated drivers from the roads (paras 15-20).
The Court emphasized that the ninety-day limit is a jurisdictional constraint on the MVD's authority, and any extension beyond this period—whether requested by the driver or caused by external factors—violates the Act (paras 17-18).
The Court acknowledged that the rigid deadlines of the Act may create challenges for both the MVD and drivers but concluded that any changes to the statutory framework must come from the legislature, not the courts (para 21).