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

• In June 2017, the City of Albuquerque seized the petitioner's vehicle under the city's civil forfeiture ordinance. The petitioner filed a petition in the district court seeking a declaration that the ordinance was preempted by the New Mexico Forfeiture Act, along with a permanent injunction against the ordinance's enforcement, and orders for the release of his vehicle and for the city to assume any storage costs resulting from the seizure (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: The court dismissed the petitioner's petition for writ of mandamus and prohibition, proceeding the matter as a declaratory judgment action instead (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argued that the city's civil forfeiture ordinance was preempted by the New Mexico Forfeiture Act and sought a permanent injunction against the ordinance's enforcement, the release of his vehicle, and for the city to assume storage costs (para 2).
• Respondent-Appellee: Contended that the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that the ordinance was not preempted by the New Mexico Forfeiture Act (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the city's civil forfeiture ordinance is preempted by the New Mexico Forfeiture Act (para 6).

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed on the basis of mootness (para 13).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Linda M. Vanzi, Jacqueline R. Medina, and Briana H. Zamora, dismissed the appeal due to mootness, as the legal issue presented was already resolved in a prior case, Espinoza v. City of Albuquerque, where it was determined that the New Mexico Forfeiture Act preempts the city's ordinance. Since the city had ended its seizure program, was no longer enforcing the ordinance, had released the petitioner's vehicle, and assumed the storage costs, there was no actual controversy or relief that the Court could grant. The petitioner's argument regarding the district court's error in quashing the alternative writ on the basis that the action was not a mandamus proceeding but a declaratory judgment action was rejected. The Court found no error in the district court's proceedings and emphasized that the matter no longer presented an actual controversy (paras 5-12).