N.M. Stat. § 30-22-3 (2026)

Concealing identity consists of concealing one's true name or identity, or disguising
oneself with intent to obstruct the due execution of the law or with intent to intimidate,
hinder or interrupt any public officer or any other person in a legal performance of his
duty or the exercise of his rights under the laws of the United States or of this state.

   Whoever commits concealing identity is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.

History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-22-3, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, § 22-3.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

Constitutionality. — This section is not unconstitutionally vague on the basis that it
does not provide a time limit within which one must disclose one's identity. State v.
Dawson, 1999-NMCA-072, 127 N.M. 472, 983 P.2d 421.

Time for response to request for identification. — This section requires a person to
furnish identifying information immediately upon request or, if the person has
reasonable concerns about the validity of the request, so soon thereafter as not to
cause substantial inconvenience or expense to law enforcement officers. State v.
Dawson, 1999-NMCA-072, 127 N.M. 472, 983 P.2d 421.

Concealing information other than true name. — Identity is not limited to name
alone; thus, in the context of a valid traffic stop, a failure to provide the information
contained in a driver's license (address, date of birth and social security number) falls
within the reach of this section regardless of whether a driver also provides his or her
true name. State v. Andrews, 1997-NMCA-017, 123 N.M. 95, 934 P.2d 289.

Information supplied during traffic stop. — This section is sufficiently definite, in the
context of a valid traffic stop, so that ordinary drivers would understand that they had to
provide more than just a name, and the authority to request such identification does not
encourage arbitrary and discriminatory law enforcement. State v. Andrews, 1997-
NMCA-017, 123 N.M. 95, 934 P.2d 289.
Use of section as defense to tort. — The defendant was entitled to qualified immunity
since the facts and circumstances within his knowledge would have led a reasonable
officer to conclude that the plaintiff concealed his identity in violation of this section.
Albright v. Rodriquez, 51 F.3d 1531 (10th Cir. 1995).

Evidence sufficient for conviction. — Since the overwhelming evidence was that the
defendant responded with profanity and recalcitrance to multiple requests that he
produce some identification and a person genuinely puzzled by those requests most
likely would have queried the officers rather than responding belligerently, the record
contains sufficient evidence for the district court to reasonably conclude the defendant
violated both 30-20-1 NMSA 1978 and this section. United States v. Stenzel, 49 F.3d
658 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 840, 116 S. Ct. 123, 133 L. Ed. 2d 73 (1995).

Sufficient evidence of concealing identity. — Where a law enforcement officer, in
response to a report of a male subject acting suspiciously, observed defendant jumping
back and forth over the fence of a business establishment in the early hours of the
morning, and where defendant declined to give the officer his name, there was sufficient
evidence to find that the officer was acting in the legal performance of her duty as a
police officer in stopping defendant, and that defendant concealed his name or identity
with the intent to obstruct, hinder or delay the officer’s investigation. State v. Ortiz, 2017-
NMCA-006, cert. denied.

"Legal performance of duty" construed. — This section mandates that the officer
asking for identity be acting in the "legal performance of his duty," which requires that
the state prove that the officer had reasonable suspicion to detain and question a
defendant. State v. Aguilar, 2021-NMCA-018, cert. denied.

The evidence of reasonable suspicion was insufficient to support defendant's
concealing identity conviction. — Where defendant was charged with possession of
a controlled substance and concealing identity after a restaurant manager called police
to report that a group of people, which included defendant, was engaged in possible
drug activity at the restaurant, and where defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence
seized from him following his arrest, claiming that reasonable suspicion of the
commission of a crime is a required element of concealing identity, and that the state
failed to introduce sufficient evidence at trial to prove that the arresting officer had
reasonable suspicion, defendant's conviction for concealing identity was not supported
by substantial evidence, because a detention for questioning about identity is not within
a "legal performance of the officer's duty" unless that officer has reasonable suspicion
that a crime has been or is being committed, and in this case, the only evidence the
officer offered at trial was that he was dispatched to the restaurant because the
restaurant's manager suspected that a group of people, which included defendant, were
using drugs inside the restroom. This evidence is insufficient to establish that the officer
had a reasonable suspicion, based on the facts and circumstances known to him, that
defendant had criminally trespassed on the restaurant premises or that defendant was
engaged in drug activity. State v. Aguilar, 2021-NMCA-018, cert. denied.
Officer must have a reasonable suspicion of underlying crime before arresting for
concealing identity. — Where plaintiff, an independent journalist who films content for
his YouTube channel, brought a federal civil action against the city of Artesia and an
Artesia police officer, alleging that his arrest for concealing his identity while filming a
refinery in Artesia, New Mexico while on public property violated his constitutional rights,
and where defendants moved for summary judgment, claiming that the arresting officer
did not have to identify a specific crime to find reasonable suspicion existed, summary
judgment was denied because this section requires that before an officer arrests an
individual for concealing identity, the officer must have at least reasonable suspicion
that the individual was involved in some predicate, underlying crime, and in this case, a
genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the police officer had reasonable
suspicion to investigate, and thus demand identification from, the independent journalist
who was filming a refinery from a public location while walking along a public way.
Bustillos v. City of Artesia, 591 F. Supp.3d 1051 (D. N.M. 2022).

Qualified immunity of arresting officer. — In a civil rights action against a police
officer who arrested the plaintiff for failing to provide proper identification during a traffic
stop, the officer did not violate the plaintiff's clearly established rights and was entitled to
qualified immunity. Nagol v. New Mexico, 923 F. Supp. 190 (D.N.M. 1996).

Constitutional challenge not ripe. — Since the plaintiff was arrested but not convicted
for a violation of this section and failed to show a credible threat that he might be
arrested under this section in the future, he could not challenge the validity of the
section in federal court. Nagol v. New Mexico, 923 F. Supp. 190 (D.N.M. 1996).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — What amounts to disguise, 1 A.L.R.
642.

Criminal liability for false personation during stop for traffic infraction, 26 A.L.R.5th 378.