New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 3-13-2 (2026)

Police officers.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. The police officer of a municipality shall:
(1) execute and return all writs and process as directed by the municipal
judge of the municipality employing the police officer;

(2) execute and return all criminal process as directed by the municipal judge
of any incorporated municipality in the state if the criminal process arises out of a
charge of violation of a municipal ordinance prohibiting driving while under the influence
of intoxicating liquor or drugs;

(3) serve criminal writs and process specified in Paragraphs (1) and (2) of this
subsection in any part of the county wherein the municipality is situated; and

(4) within the municipality:

(a) suppress all riots, disturbances and breaches of the peace;

(b) apprehend all disorderly persons;

(d) apprehend any person in the act of violating the laws of the state or the
ordinances of the municipality and bring him before competent authority for examination
and trial.

B. In the discharge of his proper duties, a police officer shall have the same powers
and be subject to the same responsibilities as sheriffs in similar cases.

History: 1953 Comp., § 14-12-2, enacted by Laws 1965, ch. 300; 1988, ch. 88, § 1.

ANNOTATIONS

Cross references. — For authority of constable or sheriff to serve process and make
arrests, see 35-15-4 NMSA 1978.

The 1988 amendment, effective May 18, 1988, substituted "process" for "processes",
and added "of the municipality employing the police officer" in Subsection A(1); added
present Subsection A(2) and redesignated former Subsections A(2) and A(3) as present
Subsections A(3) and A(4); substituted "process specified in Paragraphs (1) and (2) of
the subsection" for "processes" in present Subsection A(3); and deleted "or constables"
following "sheriffs" in Subsection B.

Authority to intervene. — Police officers may intervene when they have reasonable
grounds to believe in good faith that intervention is necessary to prevent further
disturbance or physical violence. City of Roswell v. Smith, 2006-NMCA-040, 139 N.M.
381, 133 P.3d 271, cert denied, 139 N.M. 429, 134 P.3d 120.
Authority to arrest. — The authority to arrest is not limited to custodial arrest, but
includes an investigative detention to issue a citation for a traffic violation. State v.
Marquez, 2008-NMSC-055, 145 N.M. 1, 193 P.3d 548.

Police officers and county-wide jurisdiction to serve warrants. — Because a bench
warrant is legal "process," municipal police officers clearly have county-wide jurisdiction
to execute on warrants authorized by their municipality. State v. Pinela, 1992-NMCA-
025, 113 N.M. 627, 830 P.2d 179.

Traffic stop outside city limits. — A deputy town marshal, who observes erratic
driving behavior, may initiate a traffic stop outside his jurisdictional territory, even though
he is neither cross-commissioned nor in fresh pursuit. State v. Arroyos, 2005-NMCA-
086, 137 N.M. 769, 115 P.3d 232, overruled by State v. Slayton, 2009-NMSC-054, 147
N.M. 340, 223 P.3d 337.

Same authority to arrest as private citizen. — A law enforcement officer acting
outside of his or her territorial jurisdiction has the same authority to arrest as does a
private citizen. State v. Arroyos, 2005-NMCA-086, 137 N.M. 769, 115 P.3d 232,
overruled by State v. Slayton, 2009-NMSC-054, 147 N.M. 340, 223 P.3d 337.

Prevention of breach of peace. — The power and duty to suppress breaches of the
peace includes the right to take any reasonable steps to prevent a breach of the peace
from occurring when the officers have good reason to believe that a disturbance may
take place. State v. Hilliard, 1988-NMCA-066, 107 N.M. 506, 760 P.2d 799.

Warrantless arrest. — If an offense is committed in the immediate presence of the
arresting officers, no warrant is required. City of Clovis v. Archie, 1955-NMSC-105, 60
N.M. 239, 290 P.2d 1075.

Offense committed in presence of officer. — Where the arrest was made for violation
of an ordinance in the presence of the officer, if the ordinance is valid, the arrest was
lawful and no claim for false arrest can arise out of it. Miller v. Stinnett, 257 F.2d 910
(10th Cir. 1958).

Liability under 41-4-12 NMSA 1978. — The statutory obligations that officers
cooperate with prosecutors and bring defendants before the courts are primarily
designed to protect the public by ensuring that dangerous criminals are removed from
society and brought to justice; accordingly, as with the duty to investigate crimes under
29-1-1 NMSA 1978, the duties of cooperating with prosecutors, diligently filing
complaints, and bringing defendants before the courts inure to the benefit of private
individuals, and the violation of these statutory duties may give rise to a cognizable
claim under the Tort Claims Act, Chapter 41, Article 4 NMSA 1978. Weinstein v. City of
Santa Fe ex rel. Santa Fe Police Dep't, 1996-NMSC-021, 121 N.M. 646, 916 P.2d 1313.

Police officers are employees, not public officers, of municipality. 1979 Op. Att'y
Gen. No. 79-28.
Scope of investigations. — This section must be interpreted to mean that
investigations must be related to crimes which occurred within the city limits. 1976 Op.
Att'y Gen. No. 76-04.

Jurisdiction of the city of Albuquerque over the university of New Mexico campus
is limited to the enforcement of state laws on the campus. 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-
48.

Resolution passed by board of commissioners of Los Alamos county giving
municipal police like powers as sheriffs or state officers in no way conflicted with or
diminished the powers of the state sheriff, and only restated what had already been
passed by the legislature under this section. 1968 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 68-117.

Municipal prisoners. — Persons arrested and held by municipal police officers for
violation of a state law or a municipal ordinance are municipal prisoners. When such
prisoners are held in the municipal jail the municipality is liable for their upkeep. 1968
Op. Att'y Gen. No. 68-21.

Municipal officers have authority to transport arrested individuals to county jail.
— Any person charged with a crime committed in the state, while awaiting indictment or
trial on such charge is required to be incarcerated in the county jail of the county
wherein such crime is alleged to have been committed, and 4-41-2 NMSA 1978
explicitly designates the sheriff as being responsible for transporting detainees to court
to answer such charges, but 4-41-2 NMSA 1978 does not address the mechanics of
transporting an individual to jail in the first place when that individual is arrested by
another law enforcement agency; when a municipal officer acts to arrest someone, they
are acting under their statutory authority as a municipal officer and the municipality is
therefore responsible and liable for the arrestee until the arrestee is delivered to the
actual custody of the county jail. A court may reasonably conclude that municipal
officers have authority to transport arrested individuals to county custody. County
Sheriff Prisoner Transport Responsibility upon Arrest of Individuals by Municipal Police
(12/2/2022), Att'y Gen. Adv. Ltr. 2022-17.

Municipal officers have authority to transport arrested individuals to county jail.
— Any person charged with a crime committed in the state, while awaiting indictment or
trial on such charge is required to be incarcerated in the county jail of the county
wherein such crime is alleged to have been committed, and this section explicitly
designates the sheriff as being responsible for transporting detainees to court to answer
such charges, but this section does not address the mechanics of transporting an
individual to jail in the first place when that individual is arrested by another law
enforcement agency; when a municipal officer acts to arrest someone, they are acting
under their statutory authority as a municipal officer and the municipality is therefore
responsible and liable for the arrestee until the arrestee is delivered to the actual
custody of the county jail. A court may reasonably conclude that municipal officers have
authority to transport arrested individuals to county custody. County Sheriff Prisoner
Transport Responsibility upon Arrest of Individuals by Municipal Police (7/1/22), Att'y
Gen. Adv. Ltr. 2022-04.

Village marshals. — This statute clearly grants village marshals the power to execute
warrants of arrest anywhere within the county in which the village is located. 1961 Op.
Att'y Gen. No. 61-03.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Sexual misconduct or irregularity as
amounting to "conduct unbecoming an officer," justifying officer's demotion or removal
or suspension from duty, 9 A.L.R.4th 614.

First amendment protection for law enforcement employees subject to discharge,
transfer, or discipline because of speech, 109 A.L.R. Fed. 9

62 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 474, 486, 487.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 19 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Weinstein v. City of Santa Fe Ex Rel. Santa Fe Police Dep't, 916 P.2d 1313 (N.M. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Arroyos, 2005 NMCA 86 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 6× “DISCUSSION May a deputy marshal, who observes erratic driving behavior, initiate a traffic stop outside his jurisdictional territory, when he is neither cross-commissioned nor in fresh pursuit, and where a local sheriffs deputy subsequently arrives on the scene, handles the…”

Weinstein v. City of Santa Fe Ex Rel. Santa Fe Police Dep't, 916 P.2d 1313 (N.M. 1996). · cites it 13× “In the present case, it is undisputed that Officers Sisneros and Miller are municipal police officers subject to Section 3-13-2. Their principal duties under Section 3-13-2 entail making arrests for crimes and maintaining public order.”

State v. Gutierrez, 699 P.2d 1078 (N.M. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 8× “NMSA 1978, § 3-13-2(A)(2). The same is not true for sheriffs.”

State v. Slayton, 223 P.3d 337 (N.M. 2009). · cites it 2× “The Court reached its conclusion by construing NMSA 1978, Section 3-13-2 (1988), which limited the marshal’s territorial jurisdiction as “not divesting the officers of their common law right as citizens to make arrests or detentions.”

City of Roswell v. Smith, 133 P.3d 271 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “” NMSA 1978, § 3-13-2(A)(4)(a) (1988). Police officers may intervene when they have “reasonable grounds .”

State v. Rodarte, 125 P.3d 647 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “apprehend any person in the act of violating the laws of the state or the ordinances of the municipality and bring him before competent authority for examination and trial.”

State v. Marquez, 193 P.3d 548 (N.M. 2008). · cites it 2× “Similarly, if violation of the municipal noise ordinance was a misdemeanor, then the officer had the authority under Section 3-13-2(A)(4)(d) to effect the same type of arrest for Defendant’s alleged violation of that ordinance.”

State v. Pinela, 830 P.2d 179 (N.M. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “1 Defendant overlooks NMSA 1978, Section 3-13-2(A) (Cum.Supp.1990), which provides in relevant part: A.”

State v. Tabaha, 714 P.2d 1010 (N.M. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “1985) (municipal police officers shall execute and serve certain writs, shall suppress breaches of the peace, shall apprehend certain persons, shall arrest certain persons, and shall have the same responsibilities as sheriffs); NMSA 1978, § 29-2-18 (Repl.”

State v. Marquez, 2007 NMCA 151 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “See NMSA 1978, § 3-13-2(A)(4)(d) (1988) (permitting municipal officers to “apprehend any person in the act of violating the laws of the state or the ordinances of the municipality” only “within the municipality”).”

State v. Hilliard, 760 P.2d 799 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “1984), which authorizes a peace officer to suppress disturbances and breaches of the peace, the disturbance must already be in progress, or appear inevitable, before an officer may lawfully take any action. We disagree. The power and duty to suppress breaches of the peace…”

State v. Marquez, 173 P.3d 1 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “See NMSA 1978, § 3-13-2(A)(4)(d) (1988) (permitting municipal officers to "apprehend any person in the act of violating the laws of the state or the ordinances of the municipality" only "within the municipality").”

Show all 19 citing cases →

— N.M. Stat. § 3-13-2(A) — 2 cases

Weinstein v. City of Santa Fe Ex Rel. Santa Fe Police Dep't, 916 P.2d 1313 (N.M. 1996). “In the present case, it is undisputed that Officers Sisneros and Miller are municipal police officers subject to Section 3-13-2. Their principal duties under Section 3-13-2 entail making arrests for crimes and maintaining public order.”

State v. Pinela, 830 P.2d 179 (N.M. Ct. App. 1992). “1 Defendant overlooks NMSA 1978, Section 3-13-2(A) (Cum.Supp.1990), which provides in relevant part: A.”

— N.M. Stat. § 3-13-2(A)(2) — 1 case

State v. Gutierrez, 699 P.2d 1078 (N.M. Ct. App. 1985). “NMSA 1978, § 3-13-2(A)(2). The same is not true for sheriffs.”

— N.M. Stat. § 3-13-2(A)(3) — 2 cases

State v. Gutierrez, 699 P.2d 1078 (N.M. Ct. App. 1985). “NMSA 1978, § 3-13-2(A)(2). The same is not true for sheriffs.”

State v. Pinela, 830 P.2d 179 (N.M. Ct. App. 1992). “1 Defendant overlooks NMSA 1978, Section 3-13-2(A) (Cum.Supp.1990), which provides in relevant part: A.”

— N.M. Stat. § 3-13-2(A)(4) — 1 case

— N.M. Stat. § 3-13-2(A)(4)(a) — 2 cases

City of Roswell v. Smith, 133 P.3d 271 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006). “” NMSA 1978, § 3-13-2(A)(4)(a) (1988). Police officers may intervene when they have “reasonable grounds .”

City of Hobbs v. Wright (N.M. Ct. App. 2022).

— N.M. Stat. § 3-13-2(A)(4)(c) — 1 case

Torres v. State, 862 P.2d 1238 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993).

— N.M. Stat. § 3-13-2(A)(4)(d) — 6 cases

State v. Rodarte, 125 P.3d 647 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005). “apprehend any person in the act of violating the laws of the state or the ordinances of the municipality and bring him before competent authority for examination and trial.”

State v. Marquez, 193 P.3d 548 (N.M. 2008). “Similarly, if violation of the municipal noise ordinance was a misdemeanor, then the officer had the authority under Section 3-13-2(A)(4)(d) to effect the same type of arrest for Defendant’s alleged violation of that ordinance.”

State v. Marquez, 2007 NMCA 151 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007). “See NMSA 1978, § 3-13-2(A)(4)(d) (1988) (permitting municipal officers to “apprehend any person in the act of violating the laws of the state or the ordinances of the municipality” only “within the municipality”).”

State v. Marquez, 173 P.3d 1 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007). “See NMSA 1978, § 3-13-2(A)(4)(d) (1988) (permitting municipal officers to "apprehend any person in the act of violating the laws of the state or the ordinances of the municipality" only "within the municipality").”

Pruitt v. Guinn (N.M. Ct. App. 2019).

— N.M. Stat. § 3-13-2(B) — 2 cases

State v. Gutierrez, 699 P.2d 1078 (N.M. Ct. App. 1985). “NMSA 1978, § 3-13-2(A)(2). The same is not true for sheriffs.”

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.