Glynn v. NM Taxation & Revenue Dept.
149 N.M. 518
| N.M. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Driver was arrested in March 2008 for DWI after a Farmington officer observed a curb strike, lane violation, odor of alcohol, and Driver's admission to drinking.
- Breath tests showed .09 and .08; Driver received notice of license revocation under the Implied Consent Act and requested a hearing before the MVD.
- Municipal court suppressed evidence and dismissed the DWI charge due to lack of probable cause to stop.
- Driver sought MVD revocation-hearing relief, arguing collateral estoppel barred re-litigation and seeking suppression of evidence.
- MVD hearing officer concluded collateral estoppel did not apply and admitted post-stop evidence, revoking Driver's license for six months.
- District court affirmed the MVD, and the issues centered on MVD’s statutory authority, the exclusionary rule, and collateral estoppel
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MVD may decide the stop's reasonableness | Glynn argues MVD lacks authority to review stop validity. | MVD's review implicitly includes stop legality under the Act. | MVD cannot decide stop validity; exclusionary rule governs admissibility |
| Whether the exclusionary rule applies in MVD license revocation | Exclusionary rule should apply to suppress illegally obtained evidence in revocation. | Exclusionary rule does not apply in license revocation proceedings. | Exclusionary rule does not apply to MVD license revocation |
| Whether collateral estoppel barred re-litigation of stop legality | Municipal court ruling on stop legality should Collaterally Estop MVD. | Collateral estoppel not applicable in MVD proceeding. | Court did not decide collateral estoppel due to exclusionary-rule ruling |
| Timeliness and proper avenue of review of district court ruling | District court could exercise original jurisdiction to decide constitutional questions; direct appeal is involved. | Appeal method appropriate under the district court’s jurisdiction; timely petition for certiorari applied. | Not necessary for decision; merits reached under proper treatment of jurisdiction |
| Constitutionality scope—Mas o precedent and district court vs MVD authority | Maso limits MVD to procedural due-process questions; substantive stop issue to district court. | MVD may decide issues within the Act's scope and exclude the stop's constitutionality from revocation. | Exclusionary rule governs; Maso is distinguished; stop validity not required for revocation |
Key Cases Cited
- Maso v. State Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 135 N.M. 152 (2004-NMCA-025) (MVD cannot decide due-process constitutional questions)
- State ex rel. Taxation & Revenue Dep't v. Van Ruiten, 760 P.2d 1302 (Ct.App.1988) (implicit assumption of review of stop validity; dicta not binding)
- Scanlon v. Las Cruces Pub. Schs., 172 P.3d 185 (2007-NMCA-150) (exclusionary rule applies in certain quasi-criminal proceedings)
- Michael T. (State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Michael T.), 172 P.3d 1287 (2007-NMCA-163) (exclusionary rule not applicable in abuse/neglect proceedings)
- Dente v. State Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 946 P.2d 1104 (1997-NMCA-099) (license revocation proceedings are quasi-criminal)