In Good v. Municipality of Anchorage,[1] the court of appeals held that AS 29.25.070(g) did not repeal the exceptions against munipal impounding of motor vehicles previously created by the legistlature in AS 28.01.015. Under AS 28.01.010(a), municipalities are restricted from enacting ordinances tha are inconsistent with Alaska’s state motor vehicle laws in Title 28. The legislature created an exception from this provision that allowed municipalities to adopt ordinances providing for impundment or forfeiture of vehicles when defendants commit certain offenses, even if stricter than their state counterparts. In 2016, the legislature enacted a new provision, As 29.25.070(g), which precludes municipalities from imposing greater punishment for violations of municipal law than those enacted by comparable state crimes. Good drove under the influence and had her car impounded for 30 days under the Anchorage Municipal Code. Good pled no-contest to the driving under the influence charges, but did challenge the impundment under AS 29.25.070(g). The comparable state offense contained no mandatory impoundment provision for a first time offender, which Good argued meant the municipal code’s requirement that her car be impounded violated AS 29.25.070(g). The court of appeals focused on the legislative intent behind AS 29.25.070(g) in analyzing whether it had impliedly repealed the earlier exception. They found the statute was enacted on recommendation from the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission as part of an effort to reduce receidivism in the state. The court held that the new statute did not impliedly repeal the earlier exception because it was directed broadly, and not at the specific area of impoundments and forfeitures that had already existed as a carve-out to uniformity requirements.
[1] 450 P.3d 693 (Alaska Ct. App. 2019).
