N.M. Stat. » Chapter 29 — Law Enforcement
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 29-16-1 (2026)

Short title

✓ laws through the 2025 session (retrieved May 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Chapter 29, Article 16 NMSA 1978 may be cited as the "DNA Identification Act".

History: Laws 1997, ch. 105, § 1; 2003, ch. 256, § 4.

ANNOTATIONS

The 2003 amendment, effective July 1, 2003 substituted "Chapter 29, Article 16 NMSA 1978" for "This act [29-16-1 to 29-16-13 NMSA 1978]" at the beginning of the section.

Constitutionality. — New Mexico’s DNA Identification Act, which requires all persons arrested for certain crimes to provide a DNA sample, is not unconstitutional on its face, because weighing the law enforcement need to identify all persons it has arrested for committing a felony, and the sample’s subsequent use in a database, against the minimally invasive means for securing the DNA sample from a defendant’s cheek weighs in favor of concluding that the search is reasonable under the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution and of the N.M. Const., art. II, § 10. State v. Blea, 2018-NMCA- 052, cert. denied.

Where defendant was convicted of multiple counts of first degree criminal sexual penetration and first degree kidnapping involving four separate victims, and where defendant claimed that New Mexico’s DNA Identification Act, which requires all persons arrested for certain crimes to provide a DNA sample, is unconstitutional on its face, defendant’s claim was denied, because weighing the law enforcement need to identify all persons it has arrested for committing a felony, and the sample’s subsequent use under the combined DNA index system database, against the minimally invasive means for securing the DNA sample from a defendant’s cheek weighs in favor of concluding that the search is reasonable under the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution and of the N.M. Const., art. II, § 10. State v. Blea, 2018-NMCA-052, cert. denied.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2002–2018 · leading case: ACLU OF NM v. City of Albuquerque, 2006-NMCA-078, 137 P.3d 1215.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
ACLU OF NM v. City of Albuquerque, 2006-NMCA-078, 137 P.3d 1215. · cites it 4× “…The ACLU contends that ASORNA is directly inconsistent with SORNA, §§ 29-11A-1 to -10; the DNA Identification Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 29-16-1 to -13 (1997, as amended through 2005); and the Omnibus Bill, now codified in various sections, including NMSA 1978, § 9-3-13 (2005), and…”
Gillette v. New Mexico Parole Bd., 42 F. App'x 210 (10th Cir. 2002). “In his complaint, plaintiff alleged that defendants violated his due process rights by: (1) denying him parole based on his refusal to provide a blood sample pursuant to New Mexico’s DNA Identification Act (Act), N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 29-16-1 to -13; and (2) failing to advise him…”
State v. Blea, 425 P.3d 385 (N.M. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “A-1-CA-34986 and A-1-CA-35085, Defendant contends that New Mexico's DNA Identification Act (the Act) NMSA 1978, §§ 29-16-1 to -13 (1997, as amended through 2013) is unconstitutional on its face, and on our own motion we consolidated the appeals.”
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.