New Mexico Statutes
N.M. Stat. § 29-1-16 (2026)
Electronic recordings of custodial interrogations.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NM-LEGnmonesource.com
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A. A state or local law enforcement officer shall comply when reasonably able to do
so with the following procedures when conducting a custodial interrogation:
(1) the custodial interrogation shall be electronically recorded in its entirety;
(2) if conducted in a police station, the custodial interrogation shall be
electronically recorded by a method that includes audio or visual or both, if available;
and
(3) the electronic recording shall include the advice of constitutional rights
required by law.
B. A law enforcement officer shall comply with the provisions of this section unless
the law enforcement officer has good cause not to electronically record the entire
custodial interrogation and makes a contemporaneous written or electronic record of the
reasons for not doing so. Good cause includes:
(1) the electronic recording equipment was not reasonably available;
(2) the electronic recording equipment failed and obtaining replacement
equipment was not feasible;
(3) the individual refused to be recorded; or
(4) the statement was made in a court proceeding or a grand jury proceeding.
C. Statements that are spontaneously volunteered and not the result of custodial
interrogation are not subject to the provisions of this section.
D. The provisions of this section shall apply only to custodial interrogations when, at
the time of the interrogation, the person is suspected of committing a felony offense.
E. The provisions of this section do not apply to custodial interrogations conducted
outside the state of New Mexico.
F. The provisions of this section do not apply to statements used for impeachment
purposes.
G. The provisions of this section do not apply within a correctional facility.
H. As used in this section:
(1) "custodial interrogation" means questioning by law enforcement officers
that requires the advice of constitutional rights; and
(2) "electronic recording" means a complete and authentic electronic
recording created by visual or audio media, including by motion picture, videotape,
audio tape or digital media.
I. This section shall not be construed to exclude otherwise admissible evidence in
any judicial proceeding.
History: Laws 2005, ch. 252, § 1.
ANNOTATIONS
Effective dates. — Laws 2005, ch. 252, § 3 made Laws 2005, ch. 252, § 1 effective
January 1, 2006.
Severability. — Laws 2005, ch. 252, § 2 provided that if any part of Laws 2005, ch.
252, § 1 is held invalid, the remainder shall not be affected.
Law not retroactive. — Where defendant made statements to police officers at an
interview that occurred on May 31, 2005, and Laws 2005, Chapter 252, Section 3 made
Section 29-1-16 NMSA 1978 effective on January 1, 2006, Section 29-1-16 NMSA 1978
did not apply to defendant's statements. State v. Garcia, 2011-NMSC-003, 149 N.M.
185, 246 P.3d 1057.Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2009–2025 · leading case: State v. Garcia, 2011 NMSC 3 (N.M. 2011).
State v. Garcia, 2011 NMSC 3 (N.M. 2011). “{31} Defendant argues that a state ment he made to the Rio Rancho police the day after the Armstrong homicide should have been suppressed pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 29-1-16 (2005), which requires state or local law enforcement officers to electronically record custodial…”
State v. Barros, 24 A.3d 1158 (R.I. 2011). “")); New Mexico ( N.M. Stat. Ann. § 29-1-16 (2005) (requiring detention-centered electronic recordation in its entirety if reasonably available unless good cause is shown for not recording)), and Oregon (Or.”
State v. Lockhart, 69 A.L.R. 6th 793 (Conn. 2010). “§ 2-402 (1) (LexisNexis 2008) (law enforcement unit that regularly uses one or more interrogation rooms capable of audiovisual recording of custodial interrogations “shall make reasonable efforts to create an audiovisual recording of a custodial interrogation” of suspect in…”
Commonwealth v. Pugh, 101 A.3d 820 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014). “3:17; N.M. Stat. § 29-1-16; N.C. GemStat. § 15A-211; Ore.”
State v. DeAngelo M., 2015 NMSC 033 (N.M. 2015). “8 {19} Absent an evaluation by an expert, interrogators in a position of authority can 9 preserve the evidence needed by the State to rebut the presumption of inadmissibility 10 for thirteen- and fourteen-year-old children under Section 32A-2-14(F).”
State v. DeAngelo, 2015 NMSC 33 (N.M. 2015). “NMSA 1978, Section 29-1-16 (2006) requires law enforcement officers, with limited exceptions, to electronically video and audio record their custodial interrogations.”
State v. D Phares (N.M. Ct. App. 2009). “hat 17 the defendant’s statement, “I can ask for an attorney here?” was ambiguous, and under 18 the totality of circumstances, did not constitute an invocation of her right to counsel 13 1 given the facts showing that the Miranda waiver was provided to the defendant in her 2…”
State v. Gallegos (N.M. Ct. App. 2020). “Defendant contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress for two reasons: (1) the State was required by NMSA 1978, Section 29-1-16 (2005) (“Electronic recordings of custodial interrogations.”
Browning v. Melton & Delabarcena-Beasley v. Runnels (N.M. Ct. App. 2010). “[RP 1-4] Plaintiffs contended that Defendants 7 were required to videotape these interactions pursuant to NMSA 1978, § 29-1-16 8 (2005). [RP 2] 9 Section 29-1-16 provides: 10 A.”
State v. Shaun S (N.M. Ct. App. 2010). “” The premise of Child’s argument is that he was subjected to two 15 custodial interrogations, thereby triggering compliance with the electronic recording 16 requirements of Section 29-1-16. However, the district court found that Child was not 17 in custody as required to apply…”
State v. Jeter (N.M. Ct. App. 2014). “10 {5} In issue (2), Defendant continues to argue that the district court erred when it 11 refused to admit Defendant’s exhibit that directly quoted the entirety of NMSA 1978, 12 Section 29-1-16 (2005) (electronic recordings of custodial interrogations).”
State v. Stevens (N.M. Ct. App. 2025). “NMSA 11 1978, Section 29-1-16 (2005) encourages law enforcement to record custodial 12 interviews “when reasonably able to do so.”
— N.M. Stat. § 29-1-16(A) — 2 cases
State v. D Phares (N.M. Ct. App. 2009). “hat 17 the defendant’s statement, “I can ask for an attorney here?” was ambiguous, and under 18 the totality of circumstances, did not constitute an invocation of her right to counsel 13 1 given the facts showing that the Miranda waiver was provided to the defendant in her 2…”
State v. Shaun S (N.M. Ct. App. 2010). “” The premise of Child’s argument is that he was subjected to two 15 custodial interrogations, thereby triggering compliance with the electronic recording 16 requirements of Section 29-1-16. However, the district court found that Child was not 17 in custody as required to apply…”
— N.M. Stat. § 29-1-16(A)(2) — 1 case
State v. D Phares (N.M. Ct. App. 2009). “hat 17 the defendant’s statement, “I can ask for an attorney here?” was ambiguous, and under 18 the totality of circumstances, did not constitute an invocation of her right to counsel 13 1 given the facts showing that the Miranda waiver was provided to the defendant in her 2…”
— N.M. Stat. § 29-1-16(B) — 1 case
State v. D Phares (N.M. Ct. App. 2009). “hat 17 the defendant’s statement, “I can ask for an attorney here?” was ambiguous, and under 18 the totality of circumstances, did not constitute an invocation of her right to counsel 13 1 given the facts showing that the Miranda waiver was provided to the defendant in her 2…”
— N.M. Stat. § 29-1-16(D) — 1 case
Browning v. Melton & Delabarcena-Beasley v. Runnels (N.M. Ct. App. 2010). “[RP 1-4] Plaintiffs contended that Defendants 7 were required to videotape these interactions pursuant to NMSA 1978, § 29-1-16 8 (2005). [RP 2] 9 Section 29-1-16 provides: 10 A.”
— N.M. Stat. § 29-1-16(G) — 2 cases
State v. Gallegos (N.M. Ct. App. 2020). “Defendant contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress for two reasons: (1) the State was required by NMSA 1978, Section 29-1-16 (2005) (“Electronic recordings of custodial interrogations.”
Browning v. Melton & Delabarcena-Beasley v. Runnels (N.M. Ct. App. 2010). “[RP 1-4] Plaintiffs contended that Defendants 7 were required to videotape these interactions pursuant to NMSA 1978, § 29-1-16 8 (2005). [RP 2] 9 Section 29-1-16 provides: 10 A.”
— N.M. Stat. § 29-1-16(H)(1) — 1 case
Browning v. Melton & Delabarcena-Beasley v. Runnels (N.M. Ct. App. 2010). “[RP 1-4] Plaintiffs contended that Defendants 7 were required to videotape these interactions pursuant to NMSA 1978, § 29-1-16 8 (2005). [RP 2] 9 Section 29-1-16 provides: 10 A.”
— N.M. Stat. § 29-1-16(H)(2) — 1 case
State v. D Phares (N.M. Ct. App. 2009). “hat 17 the defendant’s statement, “I can ask for an attorney here?” was ambiguous, and under 18 the totality of circumstances, did not constitute an invocation of her right to counsel 13 1 given the facts showing that the Miranda waiver was provided to the defendant in her 2…”
— N.M. Stat. § 29-1-16(I) — 3 cases
State v. Stevens (N.M. Ct. App. 2025). “NMSA 11 1978, Section 29-1-16 (2005) encourages law enforcement to record custodial 12 interviews “when reasonably able to do so.”
State v. D Phares (N.M. Ct. App. 2009). “hat 17 the defendant’s statement, “I can ask for an attorney here?” was ambiguous, and under 18 the totality of circumstances, did not constitute an invocation of her right to counsel 13 1 given the facts showing that the Miranda waiver was provided to the defendant in her 2…”
State v. Jeter (N.M. Ct. App. 2014). “10 {5} In issue (2), Defendant continues to argue that the district court erred when it 11 refused to admit Defendant’s exhibit that directly quoted the entirety of NMSA 1978, 12 Section 29-1-16 (2005) (electronic recordings of custodial interrogations).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.