N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 29 / Article 17
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 29-17-2 (2026)

Title.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
Sections 1 though 5 [29-17-2 to 29-17-5 NMSA 1978] of this act may be cited as the
"Caregivers Criminal History Screening Act".

History: Laws 1998, ch. 68, § 1.

                                    ANNOTATIONS

Law reviews. — For note and comment, "Spence v. Health Force, Inc.: One Step
Forward, Two Steps Back For New Mexico Tort Jurisprudence?", see 36 N.M.L. Rev.
687 (2006).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2004–2014 · 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 4× “{66} Another statute, the Caregivers Criminal History Screening Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 29-17-2 to -5 (1998, as amended through 1999), which restricts the employment of sex offenders as caregivers, § 29-17-5(D)(4), provides for an administrative hearing as to risk of harm and fitness…”
State ex rel. King v. Behavioral Home Care, Inc., 2015 NMCA 035 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “The State alleged that BHC’s billing for Personal Care Option (PCO) services provided by certain caregivers for whom BHC had not fully complied with the Caregivers Criminal History Screening Act (CCHSA), NMSA 1978, §§ 29-17-2 to -5 (1998, as amended through 2005), constituted…”
Spencer v. Univ. of New Mexico Hosp., 91 P.3d 73 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “It required nationwide and statewide criminal records checks of any applicant for employment with a care provider.”
State of New Mexico ex rel. King v. Behavioral Home Care, Inc. (N.M. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “{2} The State alleged that BHC’s billing for Personal Care Option (PCO) services provided by certain caregivers for whom BHC had not fully complied with the Caregivers Criminal History Screening Act (CCHSA), NMSA 1978, §§ 29-17-2 to -5 (1998, as amended through 2005),…”
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.