AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves the revocation of Nelson Rodarte's (Driver) driver's license under the Implied Consent Act after he refused to submit to a chemical test for alcohol upon request by a law enforcement officer. The officer had stopped the Driver for speeding and, after a DWI investigation, arrested him for DWI. Despite being read the implied consent advisory twice, the Driver refused chemical testing. The advisory informed him that refusal would lead to a greater charge and loss of his driver's license for one year (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• District Court of Taos County, Jeff F. McElroy, District Judge: Reversed the decision of a hearing officer of the Taxation and Revenue Department, Motor Vehicle Division (MVD), which had sustained the revocation of the Driver's license (para 1).
• Court of Appeals of New Mexico, September 24, 2018: Granted MVD’s petition for a writ of certiorari to review the district court’s decision (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellee-Petitioner (MVD): Argued that the Implied Consent Act does not require a driver to be advised of the right to arrange for an independent chemical test as a condition for revocation of a driver's license for refusal to submit to a test requested by law enforcement (para 2).
• Appellant-Respondent (Driver): Argued that he was not advised of his right to arrange for an independent test as required by the Implied Consent Act, which should lead to the rescission of the proposed revocation of his driver's license (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether a driver who refuses to submit to a chemical test upon request by law enforcement, after being advised that refusal will result in revocation of his driver's license for one year, must also be advised of the right to arrange for a chemical test of his own choosing as a condition to revocation of his driver's license under the Implied Consent Act (para 2).

Disposition

• The order of the district court is reversed, and the case is remanded for entry of an order consistent with the Court of Appeals' opinion (para 13).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Michael E. Vigil, with Judges Stephen G. French and Emil J. Kiehne concurring, found MVD's arguments persuasive. The court reasoned that the Implied Consent Act does not require a driver to be advised of the right to arrange for an independent chemical test as a condition for revocation of a driver's license for refusal to submit to a test requested by law enforcement. The court's decision was based on a statutory interpretation of the Implied Consent Act, emphasizing that the Act's language clearly outlines the conditions under which MVD must revoke a driver's license and does not include advising the driver of the right to an independent test. The court also noted that the Act specifically uses the past tense "tested" to indicate that the provision applies to a person who complied with the obligation and submitted to chemical testing, further supporting MVD's position that the advisement of the right to an independent test is not required for those who refuse the initial test (paras 6-12).