State v. Benally
2015 NMCA 053
N.M. Ct. App.2015Background
- On June 23, 2011 officers stopped Norman Benally and impounded his vehicle. The car (and its contents) were taken into police custody and held in an impound lot.
- A search warrant was obtained June 28 and executed June 29; officers found $1,295 in the vehicle.
- The State filed a forfeiture complaint on July 27, 2011—34 days after the vehicle was impounded.
- Defendant moved to dismiss as untimely under NMSA 1978, § 31-27-5(A), which requires the State to file a forfeiture complaint “within thirty days of making a seizure.”
- The district court dismissed; the State appealed arguing the 30-day period should run from discovery of the contraband (search execution) rather than from when the State took custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the § 31-27-5(A) 30-day filing period begin? | 30-day period should begin when the State discovers the property (search/execution date). | 30-day period begins when the State seizes/takes possession of the property (impoundment date). | The statute’s plain language controls: the period begins at the time of seizure/possession (impoundment). |
Key Cases Cited
- Soldal v. Cook Cnty., Ill., 506 U.S. 56 (1992) (seizure occurs when government meaningfully interferes with possessory interests)
- State v. Reynoso, 702 P.2d 1222 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985) (impoundment is a seizure because it places vehicle in exclusive governmental custody)
- Commonwealth v. Brunson, 448 S.E.2d 393 (Va. 1994) (rejected rule that seizure for forfeiture is a subjective act convertible at prosecutor’s discretion; emphasized objective timing of seizure)