N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 29 / Article 11A
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 29-11A-2 (2026)

Findings; purpose.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
A. The legislature finds that:
       (1)    sex offenders pose a significant risk of recidivism; and

       (2)   the efforts of law enforcement agencies to protect their communities from
sex offenders are impaired by the lack of information available concerning convicted sex
offenders who live within the agencies' jurisdictions.

   B. The purpose of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act is to assist law
enforcement agencies' efforts to protect their communities by:

      (1)    requiring sex offenders who are residents of New Mexico to register with
the county sheriff of the county in which the sex offender resides;

      (2)     requiring sex offenders who are residents in other states, but who are
employed in New Mexico or who attend school in New Mexico, to register with the
county sheriff of the county in which the sex offender works or attends school;

       (3)    requiring the establishment of a central registry for sex offenders; and

      (4)     providing public access to information regarding certain registered sex
offenders.

History: Laws 1995, ch. 106, § 2; 1999, ch. 19, § 2.

                                      ANNOTATIONS

The 1999 amendment, effective July 1, 1999, inserted "and Notification" in Subsection
B, inserted "who are residents of New Mexico" in Paragraph B(1), added Paragraphs
B(2) and B(4), redesignated former Paragraph B(2) as Paragraph B(3), and made minor
stylistic changes.

Constitutionality of act. — Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act does not
violate either the federal or state ex post facto clause, does not violate either the federal
or the state due process clause, and does not violate N.M. Const. art. IV, §ection 34.
State v. Druktenis, 2004-NMCA-032, 135 N.M. 223, 86 P.3d 1050.

Where a constitutionally permissible retroactive application of Sex Offender Registration
and Notification Act requirements to defendant made him subject to a probation
violation if he knowingly failed to register and if he were found to have committed a
felony by failing to register, this does not constitute a legislative act that changes rules
of evidence or procedure in a pending case. Therefore, the legislative changes are too
indirect, remote, and attenuated to be considered unconstitutional under N.M. Const.
art. IV, § 34. State v. Druktenis, 2004-NMCA-032, 135 N.M. 223, 86 P.3d 1050.

Retroactive application of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act does not
violate the ex post facto clause of the United States or New Mexico constitutions. State
v. Druktenis, 2004-NMCA-032, 135 N.M. 223, 86 P.3d 1050.
Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act is part of New Mexico’s law
enforcement code and not part of the criminal code. State v. Druktenis, 2004-NMCA-
032, 135 N.M. 223, 86 P.3d 1050.

Legislative intent. — Legislature’s intent in enacting Sex Offender Registration and
Notification Act was to enact a civil, remedial, regulatory, nonpunitive law. State v.
Druktenis, 2004-NMCA-032, 135 N.M. 223, 86 P.3d 1050.

Notification provisions are rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest,
purpose, and goal. State v. Druktenis, 2004-NMCA-032, 135 N.M. 223, 86 P.3d 1050.

The State’s interest in attempting to protect society from convicted sex offenders who
pose a significant risk of recidivism is both legitimate and compelling. State v. Druktenis,
2004-NMCA-032, 135 N.M. 223, 86 P.3d 1050.

Purpose and principal effect of notification provisions are to inform the public for its
own safety, not to punish or stigmatize and ostracize the offender. State v. Druktenis,
2004-NMCA-032, 135 N.M. 223, 86 P.3d 1050.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1998–2023 · leading case: State v. Druktenis, 86 P.3d 1050 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Druktenis, 86 P.3d 1050 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 6× “{18} The legislative findings for the passage of SORA, untouched in amendments, are found in SORNA's Section 29-11A-2(A) (1999): A. The legislature finds that: (1) sex offenders pose a significant risk of recidivism; and (2) the efforts of law enforcement agencies to protect…”
State v. Hall, 2013 NMSC 1 (N.M. 2012). · cites it 2× “” Section 29-11A-2(B). The Legislature has found that “sex offenders pose a significant risk of recidivism,” and “the efforts of law enforcement agencies to protect their communities from sex offenders are impaired by the lack of information available concerning convicted sex…”
State v. Williams, 141 P.3d 538 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “Section 29-11A-2. It is a remedial statute, designed for public safety, not punishment.”
State v. Bros., 59 P.3d 1268 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “SORNA requires sex offenders to register for a period of either ten or twenty years, depending on the offense. See § 29-11A-4(H) (2000). We see no basis on which to conclude that the Legislature intended the phrase "is convicted" to somehow limit the registration of sex…”
Vives v. Verzino, 213 P.3d 823 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “The totality of the punishment that Petitioner received and the requirement to register as a sex offender could not have been applied in New Mexico with a conditional discharge. {16} We also consider that the purpose of SORNA is to assist law enforcement agencies in protecting…”
Rayos v. State Ex Rel. New Mexico Dep't of Corr., Adult Prob. & Parole Div., 2014 NMCA 103 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “]” Section 29-11 A-2(A)(1). SORNA “assist[s] law enforcement agencies’ efforts to protect their communities” by creating registration requirements and public access to information regarding certain registered sex offenders.”
Helman v. State, 784 A.2d 1058 (Del. 2001). “(1999); N.M.Stat.Ann. § 29-11A-2 et seq. (Michie 1999); Okla.”
State v. Herbstman, 974 P.2d 177 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998). “However, it is one thing for the legislature to so require and quite another for this Court to do so by judicial fiat.”
State v. Burke, 2007 NMCA 093 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “Insofar as SORNA seeks to establish an accurate and comprehensive registry, see NMSA 1978, § 29-11A-2(B) (1999), Defendant asserts that implementation at the local level should be designed to facilitate the registration process.”
State v. Sena, 528 P.3d 631 (N.M. 2023). · cites it 2× “” Section 29-11A-2(B)(1), (3), (4). allowing a potential period of lifetime parole for the most severe sex offenses under Section 31-21-10.”
State v. Parrish, 2013 NMCA 66 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 5× “” Section 29-11A-2(A). The explicit purpose of SORNA “is to assist law enforcement agencies’ efforts to protect their communities” by requiring sex offenders who reside, work, or attend school in New Mexico, to register with the county sheriff.”
People ex rel. Z.B., 757 N.W.2d 595 (S.D. 2008). “(2008); NMSA 29-11A-2 et seq. (20089); SCCode Ann 23-3-410 et seq.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— N.M. Stat. § 29-11A-2(A) — 5 cases
State v. Druktenis, 86 P.3d 1050 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004). “{18} The legislative findings for the passage of SORA, untouched in amendments, are found in SORNA's Section 29-11A-2(A) (1999): A. The legislature finds that: (1) sex offenders pose a significant risk of recidivism; and (2) the efforts of law enforcement agencies to protect…”
State v. Parrish, 2013 NMCA 66 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013). “” Section 29-11A-2(A). The explicit purpose of SORNA “is to assist law enforcement agencies’ efforts to protect their communities” by requiring sex offenders who reside, work, or attend school in New Mexico, to register with the county sheriff.”
State v. Parrish, 2013 NMCA 066 (N.M. 2013).
Montoya v. Driggers, 2014 NMSC 9 (N.M. 2014).
State v. Parrish (N.M. Ct. App. 2013).
— N.M. Stat. § 29-11A-2(A)(1) — 2 cases
State v. Druktenis, 86 P.3d 1050 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004). “{18} The legislative findings for the passage of SORA, untouched in amendments, are found in SORNA's Section 29-11A-2(A) (1999): A. The legislature finds that: (1) sex offenders pose a significant risk of recidivism; and (2) the efforts of law enforcement agencies to protect…”
Rayos v. State ex rel. N.M. Dep't of Corr. (N.M. Ct. App. 2014).
— N.M. Stat. § 29-11A-2(B) — 6 cases
State v. Hall, 2013 NMSC 1 (N.M. 2012). “” Section 29-11A-2(B). The Legislature has found that “sex offenders pose a significant risk of recidivism,” and “the efforts of law enforcement agencies to protect their communities from sex offenders are impaired by the lack of information available concerning convicted sex…”
State v. Bros., 59 P.3d 1268 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002). “SORNA requires sex offenders to register for a period of either ten or twenty years, depending on the offense. See § 29-11A-4(H) (2000). We see no basis on which to conclude that the Legislature intended the phrase "is convicted" to somehow limit the registration of sex…”
Rayos v. State Ex Rel. New Mexico Dep't of Corr., Adult Prob. & Parole Div., 2014 NMCA 103 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014). “]” Section 29-11 A-2(A)(1). SORNA “assist[s] law enforcement agencies’ efforts to protect their communities” by creating registration requirements and public access to information regarding certain registered sex offenders.”
State v. Burke, 2007 NMCA 093 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007). “Insofar as SORNA seeks to establish an accurate and comprehensive registry, see NMSA 1978, § 29-11A-2(B) (1999), Defendant asserts that implementation at the local level should be designed to facilitate the registration process.”
State v. Burke, 164 P.3d 99 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007).
— N.M. Stat. § 29-11A-2(B)(1) — 6 cases
State v. Druktenis, 86 P.3d 1050 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004). “{18} The legislative findings for the passage of SORA, untouched in amendments, are found in SORNA's Section 29-11A-2(A) (1999): A. The legislature finds that: (1) sex offenders pose a significant risk of recidivism; and (2) the efforts of law enforcement agencies to protect…”
State v. Sena, 528 P.3d 631 (N.M. 2023). “” Section 29-11A-2(B)(1), (3), (4). allowing a potential period of lifetime parole for the most severe sex offenses under Section 31-21-10.”
State v. Parrish, 2013 NMCA 66 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013). “” Section 29-11A-2(A). The explicit purpose of SORNA “is to assist law enforcement agencies’ efforts to protect their communities” by requiring sex offenders who reside, work, or attend school in New Mexico, to register with the county sheriff.”
State v. Parrish, 2013 NMCA 066 (N.M. 2013).
State v. Parrish (N.M. Ct. App. 2013).
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.