Destruction of Drug Paraphernalia by a Police Officer

My question involves personal property located in the State of: New Mexico.

Odd question, but some background first.
I was a police officer assigned to the property room. One of the cases involved a large quantity of hydroponic equipment that had been used to grow marijuana. As the case was concluded I told the case agent that I would be destroying the equipment as it met the definition of drug paraphernalia. He said to return it. I said hell no. My immediate supervisor told me to destroy it, so I did.
I wrote a standard destruction order, had it approved by the city attorney and then dropped it off at the district court. got it back a few days later, signed by a judge, then destroyed all the paraphernalia as i had done in the past, more times than I can remember.
Case agent went apes**t and made a formal complaint. Long story short the Department of Public Safety (DPS), made up of members of the Attorney Generals Office, exonerated me and said the case agent gave me an illegal order and confirmed that it was drug paraphernalia and could not be returned.
Now it gets interesting.
The chief of police sent the DPS a letter objecting to their findings and telling them that as far as he was concerned it wasn't drug paraphernalia he then accusing me of criminal damage to property, deceit, having low intelligence and being unable to read and interpret the statutes.
So my question is this.
If a judge has signed a destruction order, who is the owner of the property from that moment forwards?

Quote:

---

Quoting NMNeil

---

So my question is this.
If a judge has signed a destruction order, who is the owner of the property from that moment forwards?

---

One would have to read the specific order to answer the question. Note that the property, while seized, still belongs to the defendant who owned it prior to seizure unless a court determines otherwise. Even an order of destruction does not necessarily change who the owner of the property is. It merely says that that person’s property is to be destroyed. Why does it matter in your situation who owns it?

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

One would have to read the specific order to answer the question. Note that the property, while seized, still belongs to the defendant who owned it prior to seizure unless a court determines otherwise. Even an order of destruction does not necessarily change who the owner of the property is. It merely says that that person’s property is to be destroyed. Why does it matter in your situation who owns it?

---

The problem is that New Mexico has two laws that apparently contradict one another.

29-1-14. Unclaimed property; authority to sell; notice of sale; deadly weapons, controlled substances and other contraband excepted.

H. This section shall not apply to deadly weapons or items of significant historical value, poisons, controlled substances or other contraband lawfully seized as evidence for the prosecution of a violation of statute or ordinance or which has otherwise come into the lawful possession of a state, county or municipal law enforcement agency and has been in possession for more than ninety days. Once it is determined by the law enforcement agency that any property enumerated in this subsection is no longer necessary for use in obtaining a conviction or is not needed for any other public purpose, the law enforcement agency may apply to the district court, ex parte and without notice, for an order authorizing destruction or other disposition of the property; provided that a state, county or municipal law enforcement agency shall allow state museums access to agency inventory records for the purpose of inspecting and selecting firearms that are appropriate to state museum firearm collections. The court shall grant the application if the proposed destruction or disposition is in the best interest of the public safety and welfare.

And

30-15-1. Criminal damage to property.

Criminal damage to property consists of intentionally damaging any real or personal property of another without the consent of the owner of the property.

Whoever commits criminal damage to property is guilty of a petty misdemeanor, except that when the damage to the property amounts to more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) he is guilty of a fourth degree felony.

Now the chief of police is saying that I committed the offense of criminal damage because I didn't own the property :wallbang:

There is another statute that you have to consider. 31-27-1 "Forfeiture Act" I can't seem to find the statute in its entirety but did find where the legislature was amending the law in 2015.

http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/15%2...se/HB0560.html

Was the defendant found guilty?

Hydroponic growing equipment is not by itself drug paraphernalia.

He plead no contest and has served his sentence.
I have already checked the NM and USC forfeiture laws but they only seem to apply to the fruits of a crime, not contraband.

Under this statute, the hydroponic equipment would be considered paraphernalia:

Quote:

---

30-31-25.1. Possession, delivery or manufacture of drug paraphernalia prohibited; exceptions.


A. It is unlawful for a person to use or possess with intent to use drug paraphernalia to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, inject, ingest, inhale or otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled substance in violation of the Controlled Substances Act.

---

That was confirmed by the DPS, but as I'm going to take action against the chief for defamation when in court I would like to be able to quote a statute saying something like, "once a destruction order is granted ownership of the property is transferred to the State/City or police department" so I can show that what I destroyed was at that time owned by the State/City etc.
I know common sense dictates that it's nonsense to say that if any police department in the state destroyed contraband that they would be guilty of criminal damage. The property rooms would be overflowing :friendly_wink:

Well I would assume that you are above prosecution since you were fulfilling your obligation of your job. I don't see any negligence here that would subject you to prosecution. But I admit, this is a little above my pay grade.

I agree, as I destroyed the paraphernalia in early 2014, and it was only after the DPS told the chief that he was wrong did he throw a hissy fit. He sent them the letter telling them they were cluleless and accusing me of: Criminal damage, being incapable of interpreting relevant statutes, being ignorant of the law, unable to interpret the plain meaning of the law, failing to exercise the judgement of a nominally intelligent person and deceit.
He didn't like being proven wrong, and putting it in writing is going to cost him and the city dearly :cool:

The order of destruction does not itself transfer the property to the state. But I think that you don’t need the property to be owned by the state to make the argument that you are not guilty of criminal damage to property. The idea behind the statute is to punish unauthorized damage to the property of another. Here, you say a court authorized the destruction, and presumably the owner of the property was given due process so he or she could contest it if they wish (I certainly hope that is the case). That court order should itself be sufficient to protect you should criminal charges be filed against you.

Filing a defamation lawsuit against your boss is a great way to end your career early. I suggest you seriously consider the potential fall out before going down that road. Moreover, what damages have you suffered from it? Unless you have suffered significant damages the costs to pursue the defamation claim is going to outweigh whatever you win as a judgement (assuming you do, in fact, win).