Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance

committees of the NM Legislature. The LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports

if they are used for other purposes.

Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are a vailable on the NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us).

Adobe PDF versions include all attachments, whereas HTML versions may not. Previously issued FIRs and

attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

SPONSOR Larranaga

ORIGINAL DATE

LAST UPDATED

2-10-2006

HB 336

SHORT TITLE Drug-Free Residential Zones

SB

ANALYST Dearing

APPROPRIATION (dollars in thousands)

Appropriation

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY06

FY07

NFI*

*Please See Narrative

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Responses Received From

Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)

New Mexico Department of Public Safety (NMDPS)

New Mexico Public Education Department (NMPED)

Regulation and Licensing Department (RLD)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

Section 1: HB 336 amends Section 30-31-2 NMSA 1978 to add “drug-free residential zone” to

the definitions used in the Controlled Substances Act. The zone is defined as: “a dwelling de-

signed and used as a residence, including manufactured homes, condominiums and apartments,

and the area within one thousand feet of the exterior boundary of the dwelling.”

The bill also redefines the definition of “drug-free school zone” to mean: “a school or property

used for school purposes and the area within one thousand feet of the school property line.”

Section 2: HB 336 amends Section 30-31-20 NMSA 1978 to provide that intentional trafficking

of a controlled substance in a drug-free residential zone is a first degree felony.

House Bill 336 – Page

2

Section 3: HB 336 amends Section 30-31-22 NMSA 1978 to apply the specified penalties for

distribution or possession with intent to distribute a counterfeit substance, and creation or deliv-

ery or possession with intent to deliver a counterfeit substance to activity within a drug-free resi-

dential zone.

Section 4: HB 336 amends Section 30-31-23 NMSA 1978 to apply the specified penalties for

possession of a controlled substance to activity within a drug-free residential zone.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

*There will be a minimal administrative cost for statewide update, distribution, and documenta-

tion of statutory changes. Any additional fiscal impact on the judiciary would be proportional to

the enforcement of this law and commenced prosecutions. New laws, amendments to existing

laws, and new hearings have the potential to increase caseloads in the courts, thus requiring addi-

tional resources to handle the increase.

SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

According to the Department of Public Safety, by providing for enhanced penalties of trafficking

or possession of Scheduled Controlled Substances in residential areas and in all school zones,

including post-secondary schools, it would appear that the penalty enhancement would lead to

some incongruous results in that, persons convicted of trafficking or possessing drugs in public

areas or on the roadways (where a large number of load cases come from) would be subject to

disparate penalties. In fact, persons committing public offenses would be subject to lesser penal-

ties than a person possessing or distributing the same amount of drug in their own home. If the

purpose of this bill is to reduce drug use, it would make more sense to simply enhance the penal-

ties for possession and trafficking across the board.

According to the Administrative Office of the Courts, there is some clarification necessary re-

garding the definition of “school,” as all qualifiers have been removed from the term within this

legislation, having the effect that any edifice called a “school,” whether for children or adults,

used for various and as yet undefined teaching, would fall under the purview of “drug-free

school zone.”

PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS

According to the Administrative Office of the Courts, the courts participate in performance-

based budgeting. This bill may have an impact on the measures of the district courts in the fol-

lowing areas:

• Cases disposed of as a percent of cases filed

• Percent change in case filings by case type

• Clearance rate

The bill does not directly impact PED performance measures. The bill supports zero tolerance of

drugs in all schools, including public, private and parochial schools.

House Bill 336 – Page

3

CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP

Conflicts with HB 179, Prison Time for Methamphetamine Manufacture, and SB 195 Metham-

phetamine Trafficking Penalties.

WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL

The Controlled Substances Act will not specifically address trafficking, distribution and posses-

sion within “drug-free residential zones”; the definition of “drug-free school zones” will continue

to be limited to public schools and will continue to specifically exclude postsecondary schools.

PD/nt