A. Every motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, pole trailer and any other vehicle that is
being drawn at the end of a train of vehicles shall be equipped with at least one tail lamp
mounted on the rear that, when lighted as required in Section 66-3-802 NMSA 1978,
emits a red light plainly visible from a distance of five hundred feet to the rear; provided
that, in the case of a train of vehicles, only the tail lamp on the rearmost vehicle need
actually be seen from the distance specified. Every such vehicle, other than a truck
tractor, registered in this state and manufactured or assembled after July 1, 1953 shall
be equipped with at least two tail lamps mounted on the rear that when lighted as
required in Section 66-3-802 NMSA 1978 comply with the provisions of this section.
B. Every tail lamp upon every vehicle shall be located at a height of not more than
seventy-two inches or less than twenty inches.
C. Either a tail lamp or a separate lamp shall be so constructed and placed as to
illuminate with a white light the rear registration plate and render it clearly legible from a
distance of fifty feet to the rear. Any tail lamp, together with any separate lamp for
illuminating the rear registration plate, shall be so wired as to be lighted whenever the
headlamps or auxiliary driving lamps are lighted.
D. A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a penalty
assessment misdemeanor.
History: 1953 Comp., § 64-3-805, enacted by Laws 1978, ch. 35, § 111; 2018, ch. 74, §
30.
ANNOTATIONS
Cross references. — For the definition of "truck tractor", see 66-1-4.17 NMSA 1978.
The 2018 amendment, effective July 1, 2018, provided a penalty for any violation of
this section, added statutory references, and made technical changes; in Subsection A,
after the first occurrence of "when lighted as required", deleted "shall emit" and added
"in Section 66-3-802 NMSA 1978, emits", and after the second occurrence of "when
lighted as required", deleted "shall" and added "in Section 66-3-802 NMSA 1978"; and
added Subsection D.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 7A Am. Jur. 2d Automobiles and
Highway Traffic § 788.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
18
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1998–2023 · leading case:
State v. Farish, 410 P.3d 239 (N.M. Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Farish, 410 P.3d 239 (N.M. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 122× “9 The State also challenges the district court’s conclusion that “there can be no 10 violation of Section 66-3-801 with respect to defective tail[]lights without reference 11 to Section 66-3-805” and argues that Section 66-3-801(A) provided an independent 12 basis for a…”
State v. Farish, 2021 NMSC 030 (N.M. 2021).
· cites it 48× “district court rejected the metropolitan court’s reasoning, concluding that a per se violation of Section 66-3-801(A) for defective tail lamps requires a reference to Section 66-3-805 (1978), 4 which sets out the number, location, color, and visibility requirements for tail…”
State v. Farish, 2018 NMCA 3 (N.M. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 59× “The district court agreed with Defendant that “there can be no violation of Section 66-3-801 with respect to defective tail[]lights without reference to Section 66-3-805” and concluded that “to the extent Deputy Martinez relied on Section[s] 66-3-801 [and -805(A)] for a per se…”
State v. Parrish, 252 P.3d 730 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “See NMSA 1978, § 66-8-102(D)(3) (2004) (amended 2010); NMSA 1978, § 66-3-805 (1978). The State appeals the district court’s order dismissing Defendant’s charges based upon a violation of Defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.”
State v. Reed, 964 P.2d 113 (N.M. 1998).
· cites it 4× “{4} Prior to making the stop, Durham did not receive any information indicating that this vehicle or its occupants might be involved in criminal activity.”
State v. Vasquez-Salas, 538 P.3d 40 (N.M. 2023).
· cites it 2× “See NMSA 1978, § 66-3-805(C) (1978, amended 2018); NMSA 1978, § 66-8-116(A) (2014, amended 2023) (listing the penalty assessment misdemeanors).”
State v. Gunderson (N.M. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 23× “19 {1} Defendant Patricia Gundersen, a self-represented party, appeals her conviction 1 for violations of the New Mexico Motor Vehicle Code, NMSA 1978, §§ 66-1-1 to -8- 2 141 (1978, as amended through 2016), specifically Section 66-3-805 (tail lamps) and 3 Section 66-3-19…”
State v. G Ortega Flores (N.M. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 8× “Section 66-3-805(A) requires all motor vehicles to have at least one 11 tail light that emits a red light plainly visible from a distance of five hundred feet 12 behind the vehicle.”
United States v. Marquez-Diaz, 325 F. App'x 637 (10th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 2× “See N.M. Stat. § 66-3-805(C). Based on this violation, Crayton decided to stop the truck “to do a registration check” and “check the paperwork with the driver.”
State v. Shindledecker (N.M. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “See NMSA 1978, § 66-3-805(C) (1978) (requiring 19 that there be a white light that illuminates the rear registration plate on a vehicle); 20 NMSA 1978, § 66-3-18(A) (2007) (requiring, among other things, that a registration 2 1 plate “be maintained free from foreign material and…”
State v. Vasquez-Salas (N.M. 2023).
· cites it 2× “See NMSA 1978, § 66-3-805(C) 16 (1978, amended 2018); NMSA 1978, § 66-8-116(A) (2014, amended 2023) (listing 17 the penalty assessment misdemeanors).”
— N.M. Stat. § 66-3-805(A) — 5 cases
State v. Farish, 410 P.3d 239 (N.M. Ct. App. 2017).
“9 The State also challenges the district court’s conclusion that “there can be no 10 violation of Section 66-3-801 with respect to defective tail[]lights without reference 11 to Section 66-3-805” and argues that Section 66-3-801(A) provided an independent 12 basis for a…”
State v. Farish, 2021 NMSC 030 (N.M. 2021).
“district court rejected the metropolitan court’s reasoning, concluding that a per se violation of Section 66-3-801(A) for defective tail lamps requires a reference to Section 66-3-805 (1978), 4 which sets out the number, location, color, and visibility requirements for tail…”
State v. Farish, 2018 NMCA 3 (N.M. Ct. App. 2017).
“The district court agreed with Defendant that “there can be no violation of Section 66-3-801 with respect to defective tail[]lights without reference to Section 66-3-805” and concluded that “to the extent Deputy Martinez relied on Section[s] 66-3-801 [and -805(A)] for a per se…”
State v. G Ortega Flores (N.M. Ct. App. 2011).
“Section 66-3-805(A) requires all motor vehicles to have at least one 11 tail light that emits a red light plainly visible from a distance of five hundred feet 12 behind the vehicle.”
— N.M. Stat. § 66-3-805(C) — 10 cases
State v. Farish, 410 P.3d 239 (N.M. Ct. App. 2017).
“9 The State also challenges the district court’s conclusion that “there can be no 10 violation of Section 66-3-801 with respect to defective tail[]lights without reference 11 to Section 66-3-805” and argues that Section 66-3-801(A) provided an independent 12 basis for a…”
State v. Farish, 2018 NMCA 3 (N.M. Ct. App. 2017).
“The district court agreed with Defendant that “there can be no violation of Section 66-3-801 with respect to defective tail[]lights without reference to Section 66-3-805” and concluded that “to the extent Deputy Martinez relied on Section[s] 66-3-801 [and -805(A)] for a per se…”
State v. Farish, 2021 NMSC 030 (N.M. 2021).
“district court rejected the metropolitan court’s reasoning, concluding that a per se violation of Section 66-3-801(A) for defective tail lamps requires a reference to Section 66-3-805 (1978), 4 which sets out the number, location, color, and visibility requirements for tail…”
State v. Reed, 964 P.2d 113 (N.M. 1998).
“{4} Prior to making the stop, Durham did not receive any information indicating that this vehicle or its occupants might be involved in criminal activity.”
State v. Vasquez-Salas, 538 P.3d 40 (N.M. 2023).
“See NMSA 1978, § 66-3-805(C) (1978, amended 2018); NMSA 1978, § 66-8-116(A) (2014, amended 2023) (listing the penalty assessment misdemeanors).”
— N.M. Stat. § 66-3-805(D) — 1 case
State v. Farish, 2021 NMSC 030 (N.M. 2021).
“district court rejected the metropolitan court’s reasoning, concluding that a per se violation of Section 66-3-801(A) for defective tail lamps requires a reference to Section 66-3-805 (1978), 4 which sets out the number, location, color, and visibility requirements for tail…”
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.