450 P.3d 693
Alaska Ct. App.2019Background
- Mae Lu Good pleaded no contest to operating a vehicle under the influence under the Anchorage Municipal Code (AMC 09.28.020(A)).
- AMC 09.28.020(C)(5) required a 30-day mandatory impoundment of a vehicle when the defendant has an interest in the vehicle and no prior qualifying convictions; the district court ordered a 30-day impoundment.
- Good moved to vacate the impoundment, arguing AS 29.25.070(g) (enacted 2016) bars municipalities from imposing a greater punishment than that for a comparable state crime, and the state OUI statute (AS 28.35.030) does not require impoundment for a first offense.
- The Municipality relied on AS 28.01.015, a long-standing Title 28 carve-out permitting municipal impoundment/forfeiture ordinances that are "more stringent than" state law for certain motor-vehicle offenses.
- The district court denied Good’s motion; the Court of Appeals reviewed the statutory question de novo and affirmed the 30-day impoundment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Good) | Defendant's Argument (Municipality) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AS 29.25.070(g) impliedly repealed AS 28.01.015 so that a municipal mandatory 30-day vehicle impoundment exceeds state punishment and is invalid | AS 29.25.070(g) forbids municipalities from imposing greater punishments than comparable state crimes; state OUI does not mandate impoundment, so AMC’s mandatory impoundment is a greater punishment and invalid | AS 28.01.015 is a specific Title 28 carve-out authorizing municipal impoundment/forfeiture even if more stringent; AS 29.25.070(g) did not repeal that specific authorization | No implied repeal; AS 29.25.070(g) and AS 28.01.015 can be harmonized and the municipal 30-day impoundment stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCormick v. Anchorage, 999 P.2d 155 (Alaska App. 2000) (interpreting former statutory carve-out to permit municipal impoundment/forfeiture inconsistent with Title 28)
- Peter v. State, 531 P.2d 1263 (Alaska 1975) (describing implied repeal doctrine and focusing on legislative intent rather than a presumption against repeal)
- Progressive Ins. Co. v. Simmons, 953 P.2d 510 (Alaska 1998) (no automatic presumption against implied repeal)
- Hafling v. Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific, 585 P.2d 870 (Alaska 1978) (declining to find implied repeal of a specific earlier statute by a later general statute; construe statutes in pari materia)
- Lampley v. Anchorage, 159 P.3d 515 (Alaska App. 2007) (assessing whether a municipal ordinance is inconsistent with state law in context)
- Lamkin v. State, 244 P.3d 540 (Alaska App. 2010) (favoring construction that gives effect to specific statutory provisions over more general ones)