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 case involves the forfeiture of vehicles under New Mexico's forfeiture statute, Section 30-31-34(D). In one instance, a vehicle was seized after its owner was found in possession of approximately two grams of cocaine during a border patrol stop. In another instance, a vehicle was seized after its owner was arrested for driving while intoxicated, and a small amount of cocaine was found in his wallet during an inventory search. Both cases involved possession of controlled substances for personal use, not for sale (paras 2-5).
Procedural History
- District Court of Santa Fe County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the vehicle owner, denying forfeiture of the Chevrolet truck (paras 2-3).
- District Court of Luna County: Ordered forfeiture of the Ford Ranger truck, rejecting the owner's motion to dismiss (para 5).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant (State and City of Deming): Argued that the forfeiture statute applies to vehicles used to transport controlled substances, regardless of whether the substances were intended for sale. They contended that the legislative intent supports forfeiture in all felony drug cases (paras 6, 9, 14).
- Defendant-Appellee (Vehicle Owners): Argued that the statute requires possession of controlled substances for the purpose of sale to justify forfeiture. They also contended that the statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied to personal use cases (paras 6, 14).
Legal Issues
- Does Section 30-31-34(D) of the New Mexico forfeiture statute require that controlled substances be possessed for the purpose of sale to justify vehicle forfeiture?
- Is Section 30-31-34(D) unconstitutionally vague as applied to cases involving possession of controlled substances for personal use?
Disposition
- The trial court's order denying forfeiture of the Chevrolet truck was affirmed (para 18).
- The trial court's order granting forfeiture of the Ford Ranger truck was reversed (para 18).
Reasons
Per Chavez J. (Bivins and Alarid JJ. concurring):
The Court interpreted Section 30-31-34(D) to require that controlled substances be possessed for the purpose of sale to justify forfeiture. The phrase "for the purpose of sale" modifies all three clauses in the statute: vehicles used to transport, intended for use to transport, or used to facilitate the transportation of controlled substances. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to target drug trafficking rather than personal use (paras 7-12).
The Court rejected the argument that the removal of commas in the 1981 amendment to the statute rendered the earlier interpretation in State v. Stevens applicable. The Court emphasized that forfeiture statutes must be strictly construed against forfeiture and that any ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the property owner (paras 10, 12-13).
The Court also considered the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, which the New Mexico statute was modeled after, and noted that its purpose is to disrupt drug trafficking, not to penalize personal use. Other jurisdictions with similar statutes have explicitly included personal use as a basis for forfeiture, but New Mexico's statute does not (paras 13-15).
Finally, the Court declined to address the constitutional vagueness argument, as the statutory interpretation resolved the case (para 17).