State v. Benally

2016-NMSC-010 · Supreme Court of New Mexico · February 25, 2016 · No. S-1-SC-35145

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Mexico held that law enforcement officers made a seizure of currency when they seized, impounded, and sealed a vehicle containing the currency. Under the former version of the New Mexico Forfeiture Act, the State was required to file a forfeiture complaint within thirty days of that seizure. Because the State filed its complaint more than thirty days after the vehicle was seized, the Court affirmed dismissal of the forfeiture action as untimely.

Court
Supreme Court of New Mexico
Writing for the Court
Judith K. Nakamura; Barbara J. Vigil; Petra Jimenez Maes; Edward L. Chávez; Charles W. Daniels
Jurisdiction
New Mexico
Decision date
February 25, 2016
Docket number
S-1-SC-35145
Procedural posture
The State petitioned for a writ of certiorari from the Court of Appeals' affirmance of the district court's dismissal of a forfeiture complaint as untimely.
Standard of review
Statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo.
Precedential value
Published precedential opinion of the Supreme Court of New Mexico
Parties
State of New Mexico v. Norman Benally
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

statutory interpretationplain meaning rulewrit of certiorariappellate procedureremedies

Practice areas

criminal procedurecivil forfeiturestatutory interpretationappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Under former NMSA 1978, Section 31-27-5(A) (2002), did law enforcement make a seizure of currency when officers seized, impounded, and sealed the vehicle containing the currency?
  2. Did the thirty-day period for filing a forfeiture complaint begin when the vehicle was impounded or when the currency was later discovered during a warranted search?

Holdings

  1. When law enforcement officers seize, impound, and seal a vehicle, they also make a seizure of the property contained in the vehicle because their actions deprive the owner of possessory interests in that property.
  2. The State's forfeiture complaint was untimely because the thirty-day filing period began when the vehicle and its contents were seized on June 23, 2011, rather than when the currency was discovered on June 29.

Key quotations

The meaning of “seizure” in former Section 31-27-5(A) is its common one: When a law enforcement officer deprives a person of the possessory interests in his or her property, the officer has seized the property. (¶ 16)
When it did so, it also “ma[de] a seizure” of the contents of the vehicle because it deprived Benally of his possessory interests in them. (¶ 24)
This Court will not effectively amend the requirements for filing a forfeiture complaint by tinkering with the plain meaning of “seizure” in Section 31-27-5(A). (¶ 26)

Factual background

Gallup police stopped Norman Benally's vehicle and, after a drug-detection dog alerted, seized, towed, impounded, and sealed the vehicle. Officers later obtained a search warrant and found marijuana, drug paraphernalia, and $1,295 in currency inside the vehicle. The State filed a forfeiture complaint more than thirty days after the vehicle was seized but within thirty days after the currency was discovered.

Procedural history

After law enforcement impounded and sealed Benally's vehicle on June 23, 2011, officers searched it under a warrant on June 29 and discovered $1,295. The State filed a forfeiture complaint on July 27, 2011. The district court dismissed the complaint under former NMSA 1978, Section 31-27-5(A), and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The New Mexico Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…