AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 Defendant was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and refused to submit to a chemical test. The arresting officer filed a statement under the Implied Consent Act to revoke the Defendant's driver's license for one year. The officer's statement included a notarized seal but lacked a notary's signature (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Administrative Hearing: The Motor Vehicle Division upheld the revocation of the Defendant's driver's license (para 3).
• District Court: The district court affirmed the administrative decision based solely on the record without holding an oral hearing (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the arresting officer's statement was invalid due to improper notarization and that the district court failed to "hear the case" as required by law by not holding an oral hearing (paras 6-7, 11).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the officer's statement complied with statutory requirements and that the district court's review of the administrative record satisfied the legal standard for "hearing the case" (paras 8, 12).

Legal Issues

• Was the arresting officer's statement, despite incomplete notarization, sufficient to meet the statutory requirements for license revocation under Section 66-8-111?
• Did the district court fail to "hear the case" as required by Section 66-8-112(G) by deciding the matter solely on the administrative record without an oral hearing?

Disposition

• The court affirmed the revocation of the Defendant's driver's license (para 13).

Reasons

Per Apodaca J. (Alarid CJ. and Bivins J. concurring):

• The court held that the arresting officer's statement complied with Section 66-8-111 because it was signed under penalty of perjury, even though the notarization was incomplete. The court reasoned that the officer was subject to penalties for perjury under the Motor Vehicle Code, which satisfied the statutory requirements (paras 8-10).
• Regarding the district court's review, the court determined that the statutory language of Section 66-8-112(G) did not require an oral hearing. The district court's review of the administrative record was sufficient to "hear the case" as the statute only required an examination of the reasonableness of the administrative decision (paras 11-12).