This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant, a former police officer, was stopped for speeding by an off-duty officer who was driving a marked police car but wearing civilian clothes. The officer donned an Albuquerque Police Department (APD) windbreaker with identifying insignia before approaching the Defendant. The Defendant argued that the officer could not stop him because he was not in uniform (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- Metropolitan Court: The Defendant was convicted of speeding (para 1).
- District Court: Following a trial de novo, the Defendant was again convicted of speeding (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the citation should be dismissed because the officer issuing it was not in uniform, as required by NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-124 (paras 1, 6).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the officer's attire, including the APD windbreaker, satisfied the statutory requirement of a uniform. The State also argued that the Defendant was not "arrested" in the constitutional sense, and thus the uniform requirement might not apply (paras 5, 8).
Legal Issues
- Whether the off-duty officer's attire, including an APD windbreaker, constituted a "uniform" under NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-124.
- Whether the statutory requirement for an officer to be in uniform applies to a routine traffic stop for issuing a citation (paras 6-8).
Disposition
- The Defendant's conviction for speeding was affirmed (para 16).
Reasons
Per Alarid J. (Black and Flores JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the officer's attire, including the APD windbreaker with identifying insignia, satisfied the statutory requirement of a uniform. The purpose of the uniform requirement is to ensure that motorists can identify the individual stopping them as a legitimate police officer. The Court adopted two tests for determining whether an officer is in uniform: (1) an objective test, assessing whether a reasonable person would recognize the officer's official status, and (2) a subjective test, considering whether the individual stopped had personal knowledge or information indicating the officer's status (paras 9-11).
The Court found that the officer's use of a marked police car and the APD windbreaker satisfied the objective test. Additionally, the Defendant's familiarity with law enforcement and his immediate challenge to the officer's attire demonstrated that he recognized the officer's official status, satisfying the subjective test (paras 12-13).
The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that public policy requires officers to wear full uniforms during traffic stops, noting that modern law enforcement practices allow for variations in attire. The Court concluded that the Defendant had no legitimate basis to challenge the stop or citation under the circumstances (paras 14-15).