A. Every vehicle upon a highway within this state at any time from a half-hour after
sunset to a half-hour before sunrise and at any other time when there is not sufficient
light to render clearly discernible persons and vehicles on the highway at a distance of
five hundred feet ahead shall display lighted lamps and illuminating devices as
respectively required in Sections 66-3-801 through 66-3-887 NMSA 1978 for different
classes of vehicles, subject to exceptions with respect to parked vehicles as stated in
Section 66-3-825 NMSA 1978.
B. A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a penalty
assessment misdemeanor.
History: 1953 Comp., § 64-3-802, enacted by Laws 1978, ch. 35, § 108; 2018, ch. 74, §
28.
ANNOTATIONS
The 2018 amendment, effective July 1, 2018, provided a penalty for any violation of
this section, and added statutory references; added subsection designation "A."; in
Subsection A, after "respectively required", added "in Sections 66-3-801 through 66-3-
887 NMSA 1978", and after "stated", added "in Section 66-3-825 NMSA 1978"; and
added Subsection B.
No reasonable suspicion justifying vehicle stop. — Where the arresting deputy
stated more than once at trial that he could see the defendant’s vehicle at 500 yards
when the sun was only just setting, there was no reason at all to pull over the
defendant’s car as there was no safety concern or reasonable suspicion of a violation of
this section, and therefore the vehicle stop was illegal. State v. Joe, 2003-NMCA-071,
133 N.M. 741, 69 P.3d 251, cert. denied, 2003-NMCERT-005, 133 N.M. 727, 69 P.3d
237.
Proof of defective battery not proof of improper lighting. — Fact that truck was
equipped with a defective battery after an accident does not necessarily mean that the
proper lights were not burning on the truck or that the battery was defective prior to an
emergency stop. Where trial court made no finding whether the lights were burning or
not before or at the time of the accident, a conclusion that the truck was improperly
lighted would not flow from the findings as made. Terrel v. Lowdermilk, 1964-NMSC-
073, 74 N.M. 135, 391 P.2d 419.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 7A Am. Jur. 2d Automobiles and
Highway Traffic § 189.
Driving motor vehicle without lights or with improper lights as affecting liability for
collision, 21 A.L.R.2d 7, 62 A.L.R.3d 560, 62 A.L.R.3d 771, 62 A.L.R.3d 844; 62
A.L.R.3d 560.
Driving motor vehicle without lights or with improper lights as gross negligence or the
like warranting recovery by guest under guest statute or similar common-law rule, 21
A.L.R.2d 209.
Contributory negligence of driver or occupant of vehicle driven without lights or with
defective or inadequate lights, 67 A.L.R.2d 118, 62 A.L.R.3d 560, 771, 844.
60 C.J.S. Motor Vehicles § 26; 60A C.J.S. Motor Vehicles § 263.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2021 · leading case:
State v. Joe, 2003-NMCA-071, 69 P.3d 251.
State v. Joe, 2003-NMCA-071, 69 P.3d 251.
· cites it 20× “{1} The State appeals the trial court's suppression of evidence, which suppression underlay a directed verdict on the count of failure to display headlamps, contrary to NMSA 1978, § 66-3-802 (1978), and which suppression precipitated a mistrial on the other counts of…”
State v. Farish, 2021-NMSC-030, 499 P.3d 622.
“By prescribing specific operating requirements for motor vehicle equipment directly related to the safe functioning of a vehicle, such as lights, brakes, windshields, and tires, but not for equipment that has little to no bearing on safety, such as air conditioners or car…”
State v. Vargas, 902 P.2d 571 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “” We need not decide whether the color of the ear coupled with what the officer had been told to look for would, by itself, constitute reasonable suspicion. This information was complemented by Officer Palos’ own observations that the car was operating on a public street without…”
State v. Gunderson, No. 33,603 (N.M. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2017).
· cites it 2× “” Section 66-3-802. Section 66-3-805(C) requires that: 8 [e]ither a tail lamp or a separate lamp shall be so constructed and placed 9 as to illuminate with a white light the rear registration plate and render 10 it clearly legible from a distance of fifty feet to the rear.”
State v. Smith, No. 34,139 (N.M. Ct. App. May 11, 2017).
· cites it 2× “Smith was convicted by a jury in the metropolitan 2 court for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor, contrary to NMSA 1978, 3 Section 66-8-102(A) (2010, amended 2016) (DWI), open container, contrary to 4 NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-138 (2001, amended 2013), driving…”
Delgado v. State of New Mexico, No. 2:17-cv-01004 (D.N.M. Aug. 14, 2019).
· cites it 2× “§ 66-7-301 ; and (7) failing to use headlights at night, see N.M. Stat. Ann. § 66-3-802 . STANDARD OF REVIEW A federal court may review a state court’s judgment of conviction only after an inmate has raised his specific constitutional challenges in the state courts and given…”
State v. Allen, No. 30,367 (N.M. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2012).
· cites it 2× “See NMSA 1978, § 66-3-802 7 (1978). 8 Defendant argues, however, that Sergeant Walker’s real motivation for the stop 9 was to allow Deputy Martinez an opportunity to question Defendant in an unrelated 10 burglary investigation.”
State v. Mondragon, No. 33,075 (N.M. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2014).
· cites it 2× “10 {4} While a finding that the deputy believed the lights were not on is not finding 11 that they were not, Deputy Rael testified to objective facts, namely, that he did not see 12 the left headlight illuminated, and he observed the taillights illuminate while the 13 vehicle…”
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.