New Mexico Statutes
N.M. Stat. § 43-2-8 (2026)
Protective custody.
✓ laws through the 2025 session (retrieved May 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NM-LEGnmonesource.com
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A. An intoxicated or incapacitated person may be committed to a treatment facility
at the request of an authorized person for protective custody, if the authorized person
has probable cause to believe that the person to be committed:
(1) is disorderly in a public place;
(2) is unable to care for the person's own safety;
(3) has threatened, attempted or inflicted physical harm on himself or another;
(4) has threatened, attempted or inflicted damage to the property of another;
(5) is likely to inflict serious physical harm on himself;
(6) is likely to inflict serious physical harm on another; or
(7) is incapacitated by alcohol or drugs.
A refusal to undergo treatment does not constitute conclusive evidence of lack of
judgment as to the need for treatment.
B. An authorized person shall make a written application for commitment under this
section, directed to the administration of the treatment facility. The application shall
state facts in support of the need for protective custody.
C. Upon approval of the form of the application by the administration in charge of
the treatment facility, the person shall be retained at the facility to which the person was
admitted or transferred to another appropriate treatment facility until discharged under
Subsection E of this section.
D. The administration in charge of a treatment facility may refuse an application if
the treatment facility is at its relevant capacity or if the person to be committed is
deemed too ill, injured, disruptive or dangerous to himself or another to be managed at
the treatment facility.
E. An intoxicated person transported to a treatment facility pursuant to this
subsection shall not be detained at the facility:
(1) once the person's blood or breath alcohol concentration level is zero, if
alcohol-impaired, and there is no probable cause to believe the person remains at risk
of physical harm to himself or another; or
(2) for more than seventy-two hours after admission, absent pendency of a
petition filed pursuant to Section 43-2-9 NMSA 1978.
F. An intoxicated person held in protective custody pursuant to the Detoxification
Reform Act shall not be considered to have been arrested or charged with any crime.
G. A record of protective custody shall not be considered as an arrest or criminal
record.
H. A copy of the written application for commitment and a written explanation of the
person's right to contact counsel shall be given by the administration to the person as
soon as practicable after commitment. The administration of the treatment facility shall
arrange translation of the application and explanation of rights for those who are unable
to read the same. The administration shall also provide a reasonable opportunity for the
person to contact counsel.
History: 1953 Comp., § 46-12-6.1, enacted by Laws 1977, ch. 374, § 5; 1979, ch. 264,
§ 2; 1985, ch. 182, § 1; 1989, ch. 47, § 4; 2005, ch. 198, § 5.
ANNOTATIONS
The 2005 amendment, effective July 1, 2005, changed "drug-impaired" to
"incapacitated" in Subsection A; provided in Subsection A that an intoxicated or
incapacitated person may be committed at the request or an authorized person for
protective custody if the authorized person has reasonable cause to believe the person
has committed the acts listed in Subsections A(1) through (7); added Subsections A(1),
(2) and (4); deleted former Subsection A(5), which provided that a person could be
committed to emergency treatment if he had been taken into protective custody three or
more times within thirty consecutive days because of intoxication or drug impaired
condition; deleted the former provisions of Subsection B that a physician, spouse,
guardian or relative could apply for commitment, that the application be directed to the
district attorney if a patient is in residence, that the application state facts in support of
emergency treatment and be accompanied by a physican's certification supporting the
need for treatment and that an application of a peace officer or public service officer be
accompanied by a certification of three or more dates on which the person was placed
in protective custody for intoxication or drug impairment; deleted the former provisions
of Subsection C that upon approval of the application, the person shall be brought to the
facility by the applicant for commitment, a peace officer or the person’s spouse,
guardian or other person; provided in Subsection D that the administration may refuse
an application if the treatment facility is at its capacity or if the person is too ill, injured,
disruptive or dangerous to himself or to others to be managed at the facility; deleted the
former provision of Subsection E which provided for the discharge of the person
committed; added Subsection E; added Subsection F; and added Subsection G.
The 1989 amendment, effective June 16, 1989, inserted "or drug impaired" in the
introductory paragraph of Subsection A, in Subsection A(5), and in the last sentence of
Subsection B; inserted "or drugs" in Subsection A(4); and inserted "NMSA 1978" near
the end of Subsection A(5).
Probable cause. — Where defendant was intoxicated to the point that defendant was
stumbling and unable to keep defendant's balance, the officer had probable cause to
believe that defendant was unable to care for defendant's own safety and had authority
to take defendant into custody. State v. Phillips, 2009-NMCA-021, 145 N.M. 615, 203
P.3d 146, cert. quashed, 2010-NMCERT-001, 147 N.M. 675, 227 P.3d 1057.
43-2-8.1. Repealed.
ANNOTATIONS
Repeals. — Laws 1989, ch. 378, § 6 repealed 43-2-8.1 NMSA 1978, as enacted by
Laws 1989, ch. 378, § 3, relating to penalty for chronic intoxicated condition, effective
July 1, 1991. For provisions of former section, see the 1990 NMSA 1978 on
NMOneSource.com.Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2008–2025 · leading case: Milliron v. Cnty. of San Juan, 2016-NMCA-096, 384 P.3d 1089.
Milliron v. Cnty. of San Juan, 2016-NMCA-096, 384 P.3d 1089. “(Emphasis added). The Legislature’s use of the permissive “may” rather than the mandatory “shall” indicates the discretionary nature of a law enforcement officer’s authority under Section 43-2-8(A).”
State v. Phillips, 2009-NMCA-021, 203 P.3d 146. “{23} To establish Officer Roberts' actual authority, the State relies on Section 43-2-8(A) of the DRA, which was in effect on September 13, 2005.”
State v. Tsosie, 2011-NMCA-115, 266 P.3d 34. “” Section 43-2-8(A) (emphasis added). The DRA provides definitions for both “treatment” and “treatment facility.”
State v. Valino, 2012-NMCA-105, 2 N.M. 675. “]” Section 43-2-8(A)(2). The intoxicated person “shall be retained at the facility .”
State v. Becenti, 2021-NMCA-060, 498 P.3d 282. “{14} Although Section 43-2-8 provides PSOs authority to request that an intoxicated or incapacitated person be committed to a treatment facility, we are not persuaded that such authority is sufficiently analogous to the authority to make arrests or, as the State contends, that…”
State v. Sanchez (N.M. Ct. App. 2021). “Phillips, 2009-NMCA-021, ¶ 23 (holding that an officer’s observations of the defendant stumbling and unable to keep his balance was sufficient for the officer’s probable cause to believe the defendant was “unable to care for his own safety[,]” and therefore, the officer had…”
Murphy v. Taos Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, No. 1:24-cv-00963 (D.N.M. Aug. 28, 2025). “§43-2-8(A) (emphasis added). To the extent Plaintiffs rely on this state statute to argue that the County and/or any of its officers had a statutory obligation or duty to ensure Mr.”
N.M. Stat. § 43-2-8(A): 5 cases
Milliron v. Cnty. of San Juan, 2016-NMCA-096, 384 P.3d 1089. “(Emphasis added). The Legislature’s use of the permissive “may” rather than the mandatory “shall” indicates the discretionary nature of a law enforcement officer’s authority under Section 43-2-8(A).”
State v. Phillips, 2009-NMCA-021, 203 P.3d 146. “{23} To establish Officer Roberts' actual authority, the State relies on Section 43-2-8(A) of the DRA, which was in effect on September 13, 2005.”
State v. Tsosie, 2011-NMCA-115, 266 P.3d 34. “” Section 43-2-8(A) (emphasis added). The DRA provides definitions for both “treatment” and “treatment facility.”
State v. Becenti, 2021-NMCA-060, 498 P.3d 282. “{14} Although Section 43-2-8 provides PSOs authority to request that an intoxicated or incapacitated person be committed to a treatment facility, we are not persuaded that such authority is sufficiently analogous to the authority to make arrests or, as the State contends, that…”
Murphy v. Taos Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, No. 1:24-cv-00963 (D.N.M. Aug. 28, 2025). “§43-2-8(A) (emphasis added). To the extent Plaintiffs rely on this state statute to argue that the County and/or any of its officers had a statutory obligation or duty to ensure Mr.”
N.M. Stat. § 43-2-8(A)(2): 2 cases
State v. Phillips, 2009-NMCA-021, 203 P.3d 146. “{23} To establish Officer Roberts' actual authority, the State relies on Section 43-2-8(A) of the DRA, which was in effect on September 13, 2005.”
State v. Valino, 2012-NMCA-105, 2 N.M. 675. “]” Section 43-2-8(A)(2). The intoxicated person “shall be retained at the facility .”
N.M. Stat. § 43-2-8(A)(7): 1 case
State v. Tsosie, 2011-NMCA-115, 266 P.3d 34. “” Section 43-2-8(A) (emphasis added). The DRA provides definitions for both “treatment” and “treatment facility.”
N.M. Stat. § 43-2-8(A)(l): 1 case
Milliron v. Cnty. of San Juan, 2016-NMCA-096, 384 P.3d 1089. “(Emphasis added). The Legislature’s use of the permissive “may” rather than the mandatory “shall” indicates the discretionary nature of a law enforcement officer’s authority under Section 43-2-8(A).”
N.M. Stat. § 43-2-8(C): 1 case
State v. Valino, 2012-NMCA-105, 2 N.M. 675. “]” Section 43-2-8(A)(2). The intoxicated person “shall be retained at the facility .”
N.M. Stat. § 43-2-8(E): 1 case
State v. Valino, 2012-NMCA-105, 2 N.M. 675. “]” Section 43-2-8(A)(2). The intoxicated person “shall be retained at the facility .”
N.M. Stat. § 43-2-8(F): 1 case
State v. Becenti, 2021-NMCA-060, 498 P.3d 282. “{14} Although Section 43-2-8 provides PSOs authority to request that an intoxicated or incapacitated person be committed to a treatment facility, we are not persuaded that such authority is sufficiently analogous to the authority to make arrests or, as the State contends, that…”
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.