BILL ANALYSIS AND FISCAL IMPACT REPORT	Page 1 of  1

DATE: February 24, 2001	Submitted by: TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPT.       
	T. GLENN ELLINGTON, SECRETARY
BILL NUMBER:  HB-920

SPONSOR:  Representative Sanchez

BILL SHORT TITLE:  Implied Consent Tax Hearings

CONFLICTS, DUPLICATES, COMPANIONS:  

DESCRIPTION:  This bill provides that action taken by the Attorney General or district attorneys in district courts shall not bind the Taxation and Revenue Department with respect to hearings under the Implied Consent Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE:  July 1, 2001

FISCAL IMPACT:  No fiscal impact.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACT:  No substantial administrative impact on the department, however, the clarification proposed in the bill would have a positive impact on administration and could result in some decreased legal challenges to department actions.

OTHER IMPACTS AND ISSUES:

•	The issue being addressed is whether the Department should continue to be bound by plea bargain agreements reached by the District Attorneys on DWI charges. Frequently a person who has had multiple prior convictions and is once again arrested and charged with DWI will agree to plead guilty to a first offense. By law, the Department must conduct a separate hearing on whether the person’s driver’s license should be revoked. From its own records the Department will know of the person’s prior convictions and would revoke the license accordingly--were it not for the plea bargain. The more fundamental question is: how much time and resources do we as a society really want the District Attorneys to spend on prosecuting second and subsequent offenders?

•	The Department’s findings in Implied Consent hearings may be subjected to review by the District Court (Section 66-8-112, Subsection G NMSA 1978), although the review is limited to “whether reasonable grounds exist for revocation or denial of the person’s license to drive based on the record of the administrative proceeding.”