DWI Information
Two types of actions are taken for a DWI
A Judicial Court Hearing and An Administrative Hearing. Both are independent of one another and have separate statues for each one. The Court can find you guilty or not and the administrative hearing can find you guilty or not. Depending on the findings, your driving record may be revoked under one or both laws
Administrative Action
The Implied Consent Act governs the administrative action under NMSA 1978 statutes 66-8-105 through 66-8-112. The driver’s driving record will be revoked if they fail to request an Administrative Hearing timely or if it is determined that they are guilty of a DWI/DUI based on all available evidence.
Hearing Request
- A person may use the following form to request a hearing within ten days. Please take note of the red notice on the document, which states that you have ten days from the date you receive the news of revocation to submit or postmark the request. When a person is pulled over, law enforcement hands them a form called a receipt of Notice of Revocation.
- You can obtain a Request for Hearing form (MVD-10792) online from any MVD office. Alternatively, you can send a letter requesting a hearing. A copy of the citation or notice of revocation, personal information like the driver’s name, date of birth, social security number, and a $25 check or money order are required unless you can provide proof of indigence.
Administrative Hearing
Any person who is arrested for DWI and receives a notice of revocation may have their driving privileges revoked by the State of New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department, Motor Vehicle Division (“MVD”) in accordance with the Implied Consent Act. Under the Implied Consent Act, a driver is entitled to a fair administrative hearing before the Administrative Hearings Office upon timely filing a request for hearing with MVD. The hearing will determine whether the proposed revocation of the driver’s driving privileges is sustained (license revoked) or rescinded (proposed license revocation dismissed). The criminal D.W.I. case and the administrative hearing procedure under the Implied Consent Act are two different and distinct processes.
MVD Reinstatement Rules Policy
Pursuant to New Mexico statute 66-5-33.1, New Mexico Motor Vehicle Division evaluates the reinstatement eligibility for all drivers whose license or privilege to drive was suspended or revoked. In the case of a revocation pursuant to a violation of the Implied Consent Act or for a conviction for DUI, the specific provisions found in 66-5-33.1(B) are applied when determining the reinstatement eligibility of that individual.
When reviewing an individual for reinstatement eligibility, the Division interprets the requirement found in 66-5-33.1(B)(4) that there must be evidence that the driver has completed “a minimum of six months of driving with an ignition interlock license with no attempts to circumvent, remove, or tamper with the ignition interlock device” to mean that that individual must have met those requirements within the six months immediately prior to application for review of reinstatement eligibility. Further, the six months of driving with an ignition interlock license must not contain any gaps or other breaks in the validity of said interlock license.
The following examples demonstrate behavior that would cause the Division to deny a driver their reinstatement:
Example A: A Driver revoked from January 1, 2022 through January 1, 2023 pursuant to a DUI conviction installs an ignition interlock device in their vehicle and then purchases their interlock-restricted license on 1/1/22. However, on 10/1/22, they have the interlock device removed to sell their vehicle and fail to have it installed in their new vehicle. The driver’s revocation period ends as scheduled on 1/1/23, and they request a review for reinstatement eligibility on that date. They are denied reinstatement because they have failed to drive with an interlock device in conjunction with their interlock-restricted driver’s license for the full six-month period immediately prior to their request for reinstatement review.
Example B: As before, a driver is revoked from 1/1/22 through 1/1/23, and they purchase their interlock-restricted driver’s license on 1/1/22. However, their interlock-restricted driver’s license is suspended for failure to pay child support on 2/1/22, and they do not resolve that issue and reinstate their interlock-restricted license before requesting a review for reinstatement eligibility on 1/1/23. They are denied reinstatement because they have failed to drive with a valid interlock license during the six months prior to requesting a review for reinstatement.
Example C: As before, a driver is revoked from 1/1/22 through 1/1/23, and they purchase their interlock-restricted driver’s license on 1/1/22. From 1/1/22 through 9/30/22, their interlock license remains valid and they have no lockouts or tampering recorded on the interlock device. However, on 10/1/22, their interlock device records a lockout for too many high breath alcohol violations. This occurs again on 12/24/22. The driver submits their request for reinstatement review on 1/1/23. They are denied reinstatement because, despite their otherwise excellent records and device eligibility, they have two lockouts for high breath alcohol content recorded on their interlock device within the 6 months immediately prior to requesting a review for reinstatement.