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

• On June 23, 2011, officers stopped Norman Benally for a vehicle infraction and impounded his vehicle. A search warrant issued five days later led to the discovery of $1295 among other items in the vehicle. The State filed a complaint for forfeiture of the money thirty-four days after the vehicle was impounded (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of McKinley County: The district court dismissed the forfeiture action due to the State's failure to file the complaint within the statutory thirty-day period.

Parties' Submissions

• State: Argued that the thirty-day period specified in the Forfeiture Act should commence on the date the property subject to forfeiture was discovered, not on the date the State took custody of the property (para 1).
• Defendant: Successfully moved for dismissal of the forfeiture complaint on the grounds that it was not filed within the statutory thirty-day period following the seizure of the property (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the statutory thirty-day period for filing a forfeiture complaint begins on the date the State took possession of the vehicle and its contents or on the date the State executed the search warrant and discovered the money (para 5).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the forfeiture action, holding that the complaint was not filed within the statutory thirty-day period following the seizure of the property (para 13).

Reasons

• Per Michael D. Bustamante, J. (Timothy L. Garcia, J., M. Monica Zamora, J., concurring): The court concluded that the statutory thirty-day period for filing a forfeiture complaint begins when the State takes possession of the property, not when the property subject to forfeiture is discovered. This interpretation is based on the plain language of the statute and the ordinary meaning of "seizure," which is understood as the act of taking possession of property by legal right or process. The court emphasized that statutory language that is clear and unambiguous must be given effect without further interpretation. Additionally, the court noted that forfeiture statutes are to be construed strictly against forfeiture. The decision was supported by definitions from legal dictionaries, case law, and the application of the "plain meaning rule" to statutory construction (paras 5-12).