NM Stat § 30-22-1.1 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 30 - Criminal Offenses|Article 22 - Interference with Law Enforcement|Section 30-22-1.1 - Aggravated fleeing a law enforcement officer.

A. Aggravated fleeing a law enforcement officer consists of a person willfully and carelessly driving his vehicle in a manner that endangers the life of another person after being given a visual or audible signal to stop, whether by hand, voice, emergency light, flashing light, siren or other signal, by a uniformed law enforcement officer in an appropriately marked law enforcement vehicle in pursuit in accordance with the provisions of the Law Enforcement Safe Pursuit Act [29-20-1 to 29-20-4 NMSA 1978]. B. Whoever commits aggravated fleeing a law enforcement officer is guilty of a fourth degree felony. History: Laws 2003, ch. 260, § 5. ANNOTATIONSEffective dates. — Laws 2003, ch. 260, § 6 made the act effective on July 1, 2003. Compliance with the policies of the Law Enforcement Safe Pursuit Act (Section 29-20-1 NMSA 1978) is not an essential element of the crime of aggravated fleeing. State v. Padilla, 2008-NMSC-006, 143 N.M. 310, 176 P.3d 299. Compliance with local policy is not an essential element of aggravated fleeing. — Where defendant was charged with aggravated fleeing, the district did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence relating to the county's high speed pursuit policy, because a local policy adopted pursuant to the Law Enforcement Safe Pursuit Act (Section 29 20 1 NMSA 1978] is not an element of the crime of aggravated fleeing. State v. Coleman, 2011-NMCA-087, 150 N.M. 622, 264 P.3d 523, cert. denied, 2011-NMCERT-008, 268 P.3d 513. Proof of compliance with the Pursuit Act (Law Enforcement Safe Pursuit Act, Section 29 20 1 NMSA 1978). — If defendant claims that a pursuit was not made in accordance with the Pursuit Act, the State must offer evidence to prove that the local pursuit policy complies with the requirements of the Act. State v. Ross, 2007-NMCA-126, 142 N.M. 597, 168 P.3d 169, cert. granted, 2007-NMCERT-009, 142 N.M. 716, 169 P.3d 409. Substantial evidence. — Where defendant, who was being chased by a police officer, drove at speeds exceeding 100 miles per hour through residential areas and ignored and drove through several stop signs also while traveling at excessive speeds; and the chase ended only when defendant struck a curb and damaged defendant's vehicle rendering it immobile, there was sufficient evidence that defendant drove willfully and carelessly, endangering the life of other persons. State v. Coleman, 2011-NMCA-087, 150 N.M. 622, 264 P.3d 523, cert. denied, 2011-NMCERT-008, 268 P.3d 513. Sufficient evidence of aggravated fleeing. — In defendant's trial for first-degree murder for the killing of a police officer and aggravated fleeing, there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions where the evidence established that during a traffic stop, the officer attempted to approach the vehicle when the vehicle suddenly accelerated out of a parking lot, and where defendant later brought the vehicle to a stop and waited for the pursuing officer to catch up, and when the officer approached the vehicle a second time, defendant fired his gun four times at the officer, and that upon fleeing from the scene of the shooting, defendant drove his vehicle away from a uniformed law enforcement officer in an appropriately marked law enforcement vehicle and in a manner that endangered the lives of others. Defendant's flight from the fallen officer was part of a continuing course of aggravated fleeing. State v. Romero, 2019-NMSC-007. Aggravated fleeing does not require that an identifiable person was actually endangered as a result of the driver's conduct. — Where defendant was convicted of aggravated fleeing a law enforcement officer after he led an officer on a high-speed chase through rain-slicked streets during the early morning hours, and where defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction because the crime of aggravated fleeing requires proof that a defendant drove in a manner that actually endangered the life of another individual and in this case, no person was actually in the vicinity of the pursuit, the New Mexico supreme court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction because the statute requires proof that the defendant drove so dangerously that his or her conduct endangered the lives of others, but does not require that an identifiable person was actually endangered as a result of the defendant's flight from law enforcement. It is the conduct of fleeing the police by driving dangerously, not the result of the conduct, that violates the aggravated fleeing statute, and in this case there was evidence that defendant displayed dangerous driving that put people in the community at risk of harm when he sped at seventy miles per hour on town roads, refused to slow down while passing an apartment complex, and drove onto a sidewalk and crashed into a road sign. State v. Vest, 2021-NMSC-020, rev'g 2018-NMCA-060, 428 P.3d 287. Actual endangerment of another person is an essential element of aggravated fleeing. — Where defendant was charged with aggravated fleeing of a law enforcement officer following a high-speed chase in which defendant drove at least seventy miles per hour through a residential area, on a wet and slippery road, with at least one curve in it, crashing the car into a traffic sign, rendering the car inoperable, and getting out of the car and leaving it in the middle of the roadway, the state failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that defendant's flight from police actually endangered another person when the uncontroverted testimony was that defendant never encountered any other motorists on the roadway. State v. Vest, 2018-NMCA-060, cert. granted. Where defendant was charged with aggravated fleeing of a law enforcement officer following a high-speed chase in which defendant drove his motorcycle through parking lots, drove on several side streets in which he ran several stop signs, and drove on the highway exceeding the speed limit, causing other motorists to pull off the road, the state failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that defendant endangered another person when the uncontroverted testimony of two participating officers was that the pursuit did not create a public safety issue or place any person in danger. State v. Chavez, 2016-NMCA-016, 365 P.3d 61, vacated by N.M. Sup. Ct. Order No. S-1-SC-35614 (Aug. 24, 2016)."Uniformed law enforcement officer" construed. — The meaning of "uniform" is a dress of a distinctive design or fashion that serves to identify the individual wearing it as a law enforcement officer. State v. Montano, 2020-NMSC-009, aff'g in part and rev'g in part 2018-NMCA-047, 423 P.3d 1 and rev'g State v. Martinez, A-1-CA-35111, mem. op. (May 14, 2018) (nonprecedential)."Appropriately marked law enforcement vehicle" construed. — A plain meaning construction of "appropriately marked law enforcement vehicle" contemplates that such a vehicle must bear a character, device, label, brand, seal, or other sign that not only makes it suitable to be driven by a law enforcement officer, but also sets it apart as specially suitable to law enforcement use. State v. Montano, 2020-NMSC-009, aff'g in part and rev'g in part 2018-NMCA-047, 423 P.3d 1 and rev'g State v. Martinez, A-1-CA-35111, mem. op. (May 14, 2018) (nonprecedential).Statute requires officer to be in uniform and in an appropriately marked law enforcement vehicle. — In consolidated cases where both defendants were charged with aggravated fleeing from a law enforcement officer where the deputies in each case were driving unmarked patrol vehicles that bore no insignias, stripes, decals, labels, seals, symbols, or other pictorial signs or lettering indicating their identity as law enforcement vehicles, and where in one case the officer's attire included a dress shirt with tie, dress slacks, and dress shoes, the New Mexico supreme court held that the officer's attire was not a "uniform" as required by this section because his clothing did not in any way distinguish the deputy as a law enforcement officer, and that the vehicles that the deputies were driving were not "appropriately marked law enforcement vehicles" because they bore no insignias, stripes, decals, labels, seals, symbols or other pictorial signs or lettering indicating their identity as law enforcement vehicles. State v. Montano, 2020-NMSC-009, aff'g in part and rev'g in part 2018-NMCA-047, 423 P.3d 1 and rev'g State v. Martinez, A-1-CA-35111, mem. op. (May 14, 2018) (nonprecedential). Plain meaning of "uniformed law enforcement officer". — A "uniformed law enforcement officer" consists of an officer wearing clothing of a distinctive design or fashion clearly indicating the peace officer's official status and distinguishing the wearer from the general public. State v. Montano, 2018-NMCA-047, cert. granted. Plain meaning of "appropriately marked law enforcement vehicle". — A law enforcement vehicle that is "appropriately marked" is marked in a manner that is suitable for being driven by a law enforcement officer and identified as such. State v. Montano, 2018-NMCA-047, cert. granted. Intent of the requirements that law enforcement officer be in uniform and in an appropriately marked vehicle. — The intent of this section's uniform and appropriately marked law enforcement vehicle requirements is to establish a defendant's knowledge that he is fleeing a police officer. State v. Montano, 2018-NMCA-047, cert. granted. Where a deputy sheriff, working as an investigator and wearing a dress shirt with tie, dress slacks and dress shoes and displaying his badge on the breast pocket of his shirt, and driving a Ford expedition that had no decals, striping, insignia, or lettering, but had a government license plate, wigwag headlights, red and blue flashing lights mounted on the grill and the top of the rear window, flashing brake lights, and a siren, attempted to stop defendant's vehicle for a vehicle registration infraction by utilizing the red and blue flashing lights on his vehicle and siren, and where defendant failed to stop, drove through a residential neighborhood at speeds that exceeded the posted speed limit, and failed to stop at stop signs and intersections, there was insufficient evidence to convict defendant of aggravated fleeing, because although the deputy's vehicle was "appropriately marked" as that term is used in 30-22-1.1(A) NMSA 1978 because the emergency lights and siren identified the vehicle as a law enforcement vehicle, the deputy was not "uniformed" as that term is used in 30-22-1.1(A) because the deputy's clothing, even with his badge affixed to his shirt, was not sufficient to identify him as a law enforcement officer. State v. Montano, 2018-NMCA-047, cert. granted.