This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A licensed driver was arrested for driving while intoxicated after being followed to his residence by a police officer. Nearly an hour later, the driver underwent two blood alcohol content (BAC) tests, both of which showed levels exceeding the legal limit of 0.10%. The officer seized the driver’s license, issued a notice of revocation, and provided a temporary license. A revocation hearing was initiated 89 days after the notice but was continued and concluded 145 days after the arrest (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Affirmed the Department of Motor Vehicles' (DMV) decision to revoke the driver's license for 90 days (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Driver): Argued that (1) the DMV's final order was void due to a lack of specific findings, (2) there was no substantial evidence proving his BAC was 0.10% or more at the time of driving, (3) his procedural due process rights were violated as the hearing was not held within 90 days of the notice of revocation, and (4) the DMV's decision was not supported by substantial evidence (para 2).
- Respondent (DMV): Contended that the hearing delay was justified by good cause, citing the need to accommodate multiple witnesses, and argued that the continuance was permissible under statutory provisions (paras 4-5).
Legal Issues
- Was the DMV's final order void for failing to make specific findings?
- Was there substantial evidence to prove the driver's BAC was 0.10% or more at the time of driving?
- Did the DMV violate the driver's procedural due process rights by failing to hold the hearing within 90 days of the notice of revocation?
- Was the DMV's decision supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the DMV's decision and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the revocation proceeding (paras 15-16).
Reasons
Per Chavez J. (Donnelly and Apodaca JJ. concurring):
The court found that the DMV failed to comply with the mandatory statutory requirement to hold the revocation hearing within 90 days of the notice of revocation, as stipulated in Section 66-8-112(F). The DMV's argument that the delay was justified by good cause was rejected because the statutory language does not provide for such an exception, and the DMV did not adequately demonstrate that the delay was unavoidable (paras 4-7, 10, 14).
The court emphasized that the 90-day limit is a strict procedural requirement designed to balance the driver's due process rights with the public interest in promptly removing intoxicated drivers from the roads. The DMV's failure to meet this requirement rendered the revocation invalid (paras 10, 13).
Additionally, the court noted that the DMV bore equal responsibility for the delay by scheduling the hearing on the last possible day and failing to prepare adequately for the case, such as by requesting a witness list in advance (para 12).
As the hearing was not held within the statutory timeframe, the court did not address the other issues raised by the appellant (para 15).