NM Stat § 66-5-205 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 66 - Motor Vehicles|Article 5 - Licensing of Operators and Chauffeurs; Financial Responsibility; Uninsured Motorists' Insurance; Identification Cards|Part 3 - FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY|Section 66-5-205 - Vehicle must be insured or owner must have evidence of financial responsibility; penalties.

A. No owner shall permit the operation of an uninsured motor vehicle, or a motor vehicle for which evidence of financial responsibility as was affirmed to the department is not currently valid, upon the streets or highways of New Mexico unless the vehicle is specifically exempted from the provisions of the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act. B. No person shall drive an uninsured motor vehicle, or a motor vehicle for which evidence of financial responsibility as was affirmed to the department is not currently valid, upon the streets or highways of New Mexico unless the person is specifically exempted from the provisions of the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act. C. For the purposes of the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act, "uninsured motor vehicle" means a motor vehicle for which a motor vehicle insurance policy meeting the requirements of the laws of New Mexico and of the secretary, or a surety bond or evidence of a sufficient cash deposit with the state treasurer, is not in effect. D. The provisions of the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act requiring the deposit of evidence of financial responsibility as provided in Section 66-5-218 NMSA 1978, subject to certain exemptions, may apply with respect to persons who have been convicted of or forfeited bail for certain offenses under motor vehicle laws or who have failed to pay judgments or written settlement agreements upon causes of action arising out of ownership, maintenance or use of vehicles of a type subject to registration under the laws of New Mexico. E. Any person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor as provided in Section 66-8-7 NMSA 1978. F. A person charged with violating the provisions of this section shall not be convicted if the person produces, in court, evidence of financial responsibility valid at the time of issuance of the citation. History: 1978 Comp., § 66-5-205, enacted by Laws 1983, ch. 318, § 6; 1991, ch. 192, § 2; 1998, ch. 34, § 5; 2013, ch. 204, § 4. ANNOTATIONSRepeals and reenactments. — Laws 1983, ch. 318, § 6, repealed former 66-5-205 NMSA 1978, relating to application of the provisions of the Financial Responsibility Act, and enacted the above section. The 2013 amendment, effective July 1, 2013, provided that a person cited for no insurance shall not be convicted if the person produces evidence of compliance in court; in Subsection C, after "secretary", added "or a surety bond or evidence of a sufficient cash deposit with the state treasurer" and after "is not in effect", deleted "or a surety bond or evidence of a sufficient cash deposit with the state treasurer"; in Subsection E, after "misdemeanor", deleted "and upon conviction shall be sentence to a fine not to exceed three hundred dollars ($300)" and added "as provided in Section 66-8-7 NMSA 1978"; and added Subsection F. The 1998 amendment, effective July 1, 1998, in Subsections A and B, substituted "department" for "division" and in Subsection C, substituted "insurance" for "liability policy or a certified motor vehicle liability" and "secretary" for "director". The 1991 amendment, effective June 14, 1991, added "penalties" at the end of the catchline and added Subsection E. A state may require insurance as a precondition to issuance of a license, and consequently, the expense entailed in posting security after an accident is equally legitimate and does not discriminate against the poor without rational justification. Trujillo v. DeBaca, 320 F. Supp. 1038 (D.N.M. 1970). Unknown liability insurance compliance status provides reasonable suspicion to make investigatory stop. — Where police officer, on routine patrol, entered the license plate number of the vehicle defendant was driving into the patrol car's mobile data terminal, which remotely accesses records maintained by the motor vehicle department regarding the insurance compliance status of vehicles registered in New Mexico, and where the query returned a result indicating that the compliance status of the vehicle was unknown, there was a reasonable basis for suspecting that defendant's vehicle was probably uninsured in violation of 66-5-205(B) NMSA 1978, and therefore the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's vehicle. State v. Yazzie, 2016-NMSC-026, rev'g 2014-NMCA-108, 336 P.3d 984. Law reviews. — For note, "Negligent Failure of an Insurer to Settle a Claim - New Mexico Does Not Recognize This Cause of Action: Ambassador Insurance Company v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company," see 17 N.M.L. Rev. 197 (1987). Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Combining or "stacking" uninsured motorist coverages provided in policies issued by different insurers to different insureds, 28 A.L.R.4th 362.