February 21, 2019- City of Santa Fe ex rel. Santa Fe Police Department v. Miguel A. Villareal-Ramos, No. A-1-CA-36027

/
1 	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
\
2 CITY OF SANTA FE ex rel.
3 	SANTA FE POLICE DEPARTMENT, .
4 	Petitioner-Appellant,
5 v. 	No. A-1-CA-36027
6 ONE 2003 GRAY NISSAN SEDAN,
7 	Respondent,
8 and
9 MIGUEL A. VILLAREAL-RAMOS,
10 	Claimant-Appellee.
11 	CITY OF SANTA FE ex rel.
12 	SANTA FE POLICE DEP ARTM]J:NT,
13 	Petitioner-Appellant,
14 v. 	No. A-1-CA-36028
15 	ONE 2007 MAROON TOYOTA SEDAN,
16 	Respondent,
17 and
18 STEVEN FLORES and ICELA FLORES,
19 	'Claimants-Appellees.
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 2/21/2019 11:34 AM
Mark Reynolds

1 CITY OF SANTA FE ex rel.
2 	SANTA FE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
3 	Petitioner-Appellant,
4 v. 	No. A-1-CA-36775
5 	ONE (1) 2007 WHITE CHEVROLET PK,
6 V.I.N. 1GCCS199378247099 NEW MEXICO
7 LICENSE NO. 392TAC,
8 	Respondent,
9 	and
10 DINO N. MARTINEZ and MIRACLE J.
11 	MARTINEZ,
12 	Claimants-Appellees.
13 	APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY
14 Francis J. Mathew and David K. Thomson, District Judges
15 	City of Santa Fe, New Mexico
16 Erin Mc Sherry, City Attorney
17 Michael Prinz, Assistant City Attorney
18 R. Alfred Walker, Assistant City Attorney
19 Zachary Shandler, Assistant City Attorney
20 	Santa Fe, New Mexico 	·
21 	for Appellant
22 Miguel A. Villareal-Ramos
23 	Santa Fe, NM
24 Pro Se Appellee
2

1 Steven Flores
2 Santa Fe, NM
3 Icela Flores
4 Santa Fe, NM
5 Pro Se Appellees
6 Dino N. Martinez
7 Espanola, NM
8 Miracle J. Martinez
9 Espanola, NM
10 Pro Se Appellees
11
12 VARGAS, Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
13 	{1} 	Petitioner, City of Santa Fe (the City), appeals from three separate judgments
14 ordering the return of seized vehicles to Claimant Miguel A. Villareal-Ramos,
15 	Claimant Ice la Flores, and Claimants Dino N. Martinez and Miracle J. Martinez. The
16 City filed three separate petitions for forfeiture of motor vehicles pursuant to the
17 City's forfeiture ordinance, 	Santa Fe, N.M., Code § 24-9 SFCC 	1987 (1993,
18 amended 2012) (Ordinance). On appeal, the City argues that the district court erred
19 by directing the return of Claimants' vehicles in all three cases. Because these
20 appeals present substantially similar issues, we exercise our discretion to consolidate
21 	them for decision. See Rule 12-317(B) NMRA.
3

1 {2} 	Our recent decision in City ofSanta Fe ex rel. Santa Fe Police Department v.
2 	One (1) 1989 BlackSaab,_-NMCA-_,_P.3d_(No. A-1-CA-35944, Jan.
3 	10, 2019), held that the New Mexico Forfeiture Act (NMFA), NMSA 1978, §§ 31-
4 27-1 to -11 (2002, as amended through 2015), preempts the Ordinance and the City
5 thus has no authority to seize and forfeit ·property under the Ordinance. Following
6 this precedent, we hold that the decisions below directing compliance with the
7 Ordinance are vacated, and remand the matters to the district court with instructions
8 to dismiss the City's petitions and order the unconditional return of Claimants'
9 vehicles.
10 BACKGROUND
11 	{3} 	The 	facts 	in 	each 	case 	are 	substantially 	similar. 	Claimants 	Miguel 	A.
12 Villareal-Ramos and Dino N. Martinez were arrested by Santa Fe Police Department
13 	officers for driving with licenses that had been revoked, and not reinstated, as a result
14 of prior DWI-related offenses. Claimant Steven Flores, the son of _Claimant Icela
15 	Flores, was stopped by a Santa Fe Police Department officer for driving without an
16 ignition interlock device while holding a validly issued driver's license with an
17 ignition interlock restriction. Pursuant to the Ordinance, the City seized Claimants'
18 	vehicles and sought forfeiture of the vehicles in district court.
19 	{4} 	The district court entered judgment in favor of Villareal-Ramos and the
20 Martinezes, ordering the City to provide them the opportunity to recover their
4

1 vehicles by installing interlock devices in the vehicles and paying fees pursuant to
2 the Ordinance. The district court also ruled in favor of the Floreses, ordering the
3 return of the vehicle to Icela Flores upon payment of fees by Steven Flores. The City
4 appealed all three rulings, arguing that the district court's interpretation of various
5 provisions of the Ordinance was flawed.
6 	{5} 	Because two of our recent decisions hold the NMF A preempts municipal
7 forfeiture 	ordinances, 	we 	requested 	supplemental 	briefing 	on 	the 	issue 	of
8 preemption. The City argues the NMFA does not limit the City's authority to enact
9 the Ordinance, a nuisance abatement tool with different purposes than the NMF A.
10 DISCUSSION
11 	{6} 	We review these consolidated appeals de novo because the material facts are
12 not in dispute and the questions presented are legal issues. See City of Santa Fe ex
13 	rel. Santa Fe Police Dep't v. One (1) Black 2006 Jeep, 2012-NMCA-027, 17,286
14 P.3d 1223 (" 'When there are no disputed material facts, an appellate court reviews
15 	all issues on appeal under a de nova 	standard of review.'" 	(quoting 	City of
16 Albuquerque ex rel. Albuquerque Police Dep 't v. One (1) 1984 Whit~ Chevy, 2002-
17 NMSC-014, 15, 132 N.M. 187, 46 P.3d 94)); see also State v. Hicks, 2013-NMCA-
18 	056, 15,300 P.3d 1183 (reviewing legal issues de novo).
19 	{7} 	Our recent decision in Black Saab is controlling, and bars the City from
20 enforcing the Ordinance. In Black Saab, we held that "the NMF A denies the City
5

1 authority to seize and forfeit property under the Santa Fe Ordinance" because the
2 Ordinance is preempted by the NMFA. _-NMCA-_, ,-r,-r 4, 7. In reaching this
3 conclusion, we adopted the reasoning of Espinoza v. 	City of Albuquerque, _-
4 NMCA-_, _ 	P.3d _ 	(No. A-1-CA-35908, Dec. 5, 2018), an analogous case
5 where we held the NMFA preempts Albuquerque's forfeiture ordinance. Black Saab,
6 _-NMCA-_, ,-r 7. Albuquerque's forfeiture ordinance is substantially similar to
7 the Ordinance. Id. ,-r 4. Both ordinances are styled as abatement tools, which provide
8 for civil forfeiture of motor vehicles deemed to be a nuisance based on use of a
9 vehicle in the commission of a DWI offense or operation by a person whose license
10 	is revoked because of a DWI offense. Id. ,-r 5.
11 	{8} 	In both Black Saab and Espinoza, we rejected arguments that the plain
12 language of the NMFA does not preempt municipal forfeiture ordinances. Black
13 	Saab, _-NMCA-_, ,-r 6. Likewise, we rejected the argument that the Legislature
14 did not intend for the NMF A to preempt municipal forfeiture ordinances. Id. The
15 	Ordinance at issue here contradicts the Legislature's intent, expressed through the
16 NMF A, to eliminate civil forfeitures. See id. ,-r 7.
17 {9} 	The City makes no attempt to argue Black Saab and Espinoza are inapplicable.
18 Rather, the City claims the NMF A does not preempt the Ordinance, essentially
19 arguing that our recent cases were wrongly decided. We decline to depart from the
20 analysis set forth in Black Saab and Espinoza. Such a course of action "would be
6

1 destructive of the positive goals of stability and predictability fostered by the notion
2 	of stare decisis." Cordova v. Taos Ski Valley, Inc., 1996-NMCA-009, ,-r 21, 121 N.M.
3 	258,910 P.2d 334. Adhering to precedent, we conclude the Ordinance is preempted
· 4 	by the NMF A and may not lawfully be enforced against Claimants.
5 	{to} 	Because we hold the Ordinance is preempted and unenforceable, we need not
6 consider the City's remaining arguments regarding the proper interpretation and
7 application of the Ordinance.
8 CONCLUSION
9 	{11} 	The judgments of the district court applying the provisions of the Ordinance
10 are vacated, and these matters are remanded to the district court with instructions to
11 	dismiss 	the 	City's 	petitions and order the 	unconditional return 	of Claimants'
12 vehicles.
13 	{12} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
16 WE CONCUR:
7