1. A. The purposes of the Forfeiture Act are to:

   1. (1) make uniform the standards and procedures for the seizure and forfeiture of property subject to forfeiture;
   2. (2) protect the constitutional rights of persons whose property is subject to forfeiture and of innocent owners holding interests in property subject to forfeiture;
   3. (3) deter criminal activity by reducing its economic incentives;
   4. (4) increase the pecuniary loss from criminal activity;
   5. (5) protect against the wrongful forfeiture of property; and
   6. (6) ensure that only criminal forfeiture is allowed in this state and only pursuant to state law.

2. B. The Forfeiture Act:

   1. (1) applies to all seizures, forfeitures and dispositions of property subject to forfeiture pursuant to laws that specifically apply the Forfeiture Act in this state; and

   2. (2) does not apply to:

      1. (a) contraband, which is subject to seizure pursuant to applicable state laws, but is not subject to forfeiture pursuant to the Forfeiture Act;
      2. (b) animals that are subject to seizure, impoundment, alteration, permanent removal from custody or destruction for animal welfare, public health and safety or compliance and enforcement purposes pursuant to applicable state and local laws;
      3. (c) real property or personal property that is located on that real property that is subject to destruction pursuant to state and local laws to protect public health and safety; and
      4. (d) forfeiture that results from a lien for charges or assessments that are provided for or fixed by state or local laws.

History: Laws 2002, ch. 4, § 2; 2015, ch. 152, § 2; 2019, ch. 133, § 1.

ANNOTATIONS

The 2019 amendment, effective April 2, 2019, clarified that the purposes of the Forfeiture Act are to ensure that only criminal forfeiture is allowed in this state and only pursuant to state law, and revised the applicability provisions of the Forfeiture Act; in Subsection A, in Paragraph A(6), after "in this state", added "and only pursuant to state law"; and in Subsection B, in Paragraph B(1), after "applies to", added "all", after "the Forfeiture Act", added "in this state", and in Paragraph B(2), added subparagraph designation "(a)" and new Subparagraphs B(2)(b) through B(2)(d).

Applicability. — Laws 2019, ch. 133, § 13 provided that the provisions of the Forfeiture Act apply to seized and abandoned property in the possession of a law enforcement agency or the state treasurer on and after April 2, 2019.

Temporary provisions. — Laws 2019, ch. 133, § 11 provided that the New Mexico supreme court shall issue procedural court rules to implement the provisions of this act.

Laws 2019, ch. 133, § 12 provided that abandoned property in the possession of a law enforcement agency or the state treasurer on April 2, 2019 shall be disposed of pursuant to Section 29-1-14 NMSA 1978.

The 2015 amendment, effective July 1, 2015, provided for additional purposes of the Forfeiture Act; removed the reference to seizures and forfeitures pursuant to other laws consistent with the Forfeiture Act; in the catchline, added "no additional remedies"; at the end of Paragraph (1) of Subsection A, deleted "and"; in Paragraph (2) of Subsection A, after "rights of persons", deleted "accused of a crime" and added "whose property is subject to forfeiture", and after "innocent", deleted "persons" and added "owners"; added new Paragraphs (3) through (6) of Subsection A; and in Subsection B, deleted all the language in Paragraph (2) and added the new language.

Civil forfeiture ordinance preempted by New Mexico Forfeiture Act. — Where the City of Santa Fe (city) appealed the district court's order directing the return of claimant's car, which was seized pursuant to the city's forfeiture ordinance, which provides that a motor vehicle is declared to be a nuisance and subject to immediate forfeiture if the vehicle is operated by a person in the commission of a DWI offense or by a person whose license is suspended or revoked as a result of a DWI arrest, the New Mexico Forfeiture Act (NMFA), §§ 31-27-1 to 31-27-11 NMSA 1978, a general law that is intended to ensure that only criminal forfeiture is allowed in this state, expressly denies municipalities' authority to enforce civil asset forfeiture proceedings. The NMFA comprehensively addresses asset forfeiture, and because the city's civil forfeiture ordinance is at odds with the NMFA, the NMFA preempts the ordinance. City of Santa Fe ex rel. Santa Fe Police Dep't v. 1989 Black Saab Sedan, 2019-NMCA-028, cert. denied.

Forfeiture of cash. — State police officers who seize cash under the authority of the Controlled Substances Act are required to comply with the requirements of the Forfeiture Act. Albin v. Bakas, 2007-NMCA-076, 141 N.M. 742, 160 P.3d 923, cert. denied, 2007-NMCERT-006, 142 N.M. 16, 162 P.3d 171.

Municipal civil forfeiture ordinance preempted by New Mexico Forfeiture Act. — Where the city of Albuquerque (city) seized plaintiff's vehicle pursuant to the city's civil forfeiture ordinance, which provides that a motor vehicle is declared to be a nuisance and subject to immediate forfeiture if the vehicle is operated by a person in the commission of a DWI offense or by a person whose license is suspended or revoked as a result of a DWI conviction or arrest, the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, because the New Mexico Forfeiture Act (NMFA), 31-27-1 to 31-27-11 NMSA 1978, a general law that is intended to ensure that only criminal forfeiture is allowed in this state, expressly denies home-rule municipalities' authority to enforce civil asset forfeiture proceedings. The NMFA comprehensively addresses asset forfeiture, and because the city's civil forfeiture ordinance is at odds with the NMFA, the NMFA preempts the ordinance. Espinoza v. City of Albuquerque, 2019-NMCA-014.

New Mexico Forfeiture Act preempts municipal forfeiture ordinance. — A state law preempts a local ordinance if the local ordinance interferes with the state law's objectives or purposes, and one of the New Mexico Forfeiture Act's (NMFA) stated purposes is to ensure that only criminal forfeiture is allowed in New Mexico. This purpose limiting forfeitures to criminal actions is expressly at odds with the city of Albuquerque's civil forfeiture ordinance. The NMFA also states that one of its purposes is to make uniform the standards and procedures for the seizure and forfeiture of property subject to forfeiture. The New Mexico legislature's desire for uniformity in the standards and procedures also suggests that it intends to supplant local forfeiture laws, which might have different standards and procedures. Harjo v. City of Albuquerque, 307 F.Supp.3d 1163 (D. N.M. 2018).