.......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........

RIO RANCHO, N.M. — The Rio Rancho Governing Body on Wednesday voted down a proposal that would eliminate the policy of permanently taking vehicles away as a punishment in some drunken driving cases.

Councilor Chuck Wilkins’ proposal would have allowed the city to boot cars temporarily, but not take ownership of them and sell them as a civil penalty. He also wanted owners who were found innocent to get back the money they paid for an administrative hearing.

The current ordinance can force some drivers to forfeit their vehicles if they’ve been arrested twice or more for drunken driving, or if they’re caught driving on a suspended license that resulted from a DWI conviction or arrest.

The state Legislature earlier this year banned the practice of civil asset forfeiture and Wilkins said changing the ordinance would bring the city into lockstep with state law. The city’s legal department, however, has said the state law doesn’t affect the city’s ordinance.

A majority of councilors, but not Wilkins, voted in February to approve the ordinance that allowed confiscation of vehicles. He has since been an opponent of the practice and critics from across the political divide have raised questions about the practice’s constitutionality, locally and nationally.

Councilor Dawnn Robinson said she was initially in support of overhauling the city’s forfeiture ordinance, but Wilkins’ policy ideas didn’t convince her. She said Wilkins’ proposal would result in a bogged-down District Court and increased costs.

ADVERTISEMENTSkip

................................................................

“I am genuinely disappointed in this ordinance because, sadly, I feel it fails on many counts,” Robinson said. “I am open to solutions, but this is not it.”

Some councilors said they supported Wilkins’ idea about refunding innocent owners’ administrative fees and determined the best way to move forward with at least that ordinance change would be potentially to bring it up again at a subsequent meeting.

Wilkins defended his proposal, saying he thinks fellow councilors misunderstood and insisting all the ordinance would do is “not tak(e) your vehicle before you’re criminally convicted.”

Wilkins and Councilor Mark Scott voted for the proposal, but the remaining four councilors voted against it. Wilkins did not say during the meeting whether he intends to bring another proposal before the Governing Body.