A. Except as provided by Section 66-7-369 NMSA 1978 and in Subsection B of this
section, each occupant of a motor vehicle having a gross vehicle weight of ten thousand
pounds or less manufactured with safety belts in compliance with federal motor vehicle
safety standard number 208 shall have a safety belt properly fastened about his body at
all times when the vehicle is in motion on any street or highway.
B. This section shall not apply to an occupant of a motor vehicle having a gross
vehicle weight of ten thousand pounds or less who possesses a written statement from
a licensed physician that he is unable for medical reasons to wear a safety belt or to a
rural letter carrier of the United States postal service while performing the duties of a
rural letter carrier.
History: Laws 1985, ch. 131, § 3; 1989, ch. 317, § 1; 2001, ch. 191, § 1.
ANNOTATIONS
Cross references. — For federal motor vehicle safety standard number 208, see 49
C.F.R. § 571.208.
The 2001 amendment, effective June 15, 2001, in Subsection A, deleted "front seat"
preceding "occupant" and deleted "unless all seating positions equipped with safety
belts are occupied" from the end of the subsection.
The 1989 amendment, effective June 16, 1989, substituted "motor vehicle having a
gross vehicle weight of ten thousand pounds or less" for "passenger car" near the
beginning of Subsections A and B, inserted "on any street or highway" near the end of
Subsection A, and made a minor stylistic change in Subsection B.
Reasonable grounds for stopping vehicle. — Police officer who stopped defendant's
vehicle because the shoulder harnesses for the driver and front seat passenger were
dangling from the ceiling had reasonable grounds to stop the vehicle for violation of this
section. State v. Apodaca, 1991-NMCA-048, 112 N.M. 302, 814 P.2d 1030, cert.
denied, 112 N.M. 220, 813 P.2d 1018.
Police officers who stop vehicles for alleged violations of this section should not be
required to know the design of the safety-belt system in every motor vehicle. State v.
Apodaca, 1991-NMCA-048, 112 N.M. 302, 814 P.2d 1030, cert. denied, 112 N.M. 220,
813 P.2d 1018.
New Mexico law does not permit custodial arrest for violation of its seat belt
regulation. United States v. Guzman, 864 F.2d 1512 (10th Cir. 1988).
Law reviews. — For note, "Tort Litigation – The New Case for the 'Seat Belt Defense' –
Norwest Bank New Mexico, N.A. v. Chrysler Corporation," see 30 N.M. L. Rev. 403
(2000).
Notes of Decisions
Norwest Bank New Mexico, N.A. v. Chrysler Corp., 1999-NMCA-070, 981 P.2d 1215.
· cites it 10× “The heart of the Act is Section 66-7-372, which requires that seat belts be worn by front-seat occupants of a motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight under five tons when the vehicle is traveling on a street or highway.”
State v. Tapia, 414 P.3d 332 (N.M. 2018).
· cites it 2× “{5} Defendant was charged with forgery, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-16-10(A) (2006) ; concealing identity, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-22-3 (1963) ; and seat belt violation, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 66-7-372(A) (2001). {6} Defendant filed in the Eleventh…”
State v. Tapia, 2018-NMSC-017.
· cites it 2× “{5} Defendant was charged with forgery, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-16-10(A) (2006); concealing identity, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-22-3 (1963); and seat belt violation, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 66-7-372(A) (2001). {6} Defendant filed in the Eleventh Judicial…”
State v. Apodaca, 814 P.2d 1030 (N.M. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 4× “We find it unnecessary to decide whether defendant’s construction of Section 66-7-372 is correct. Even if it is, Officer Conticelli possessed sufficient information to establish reasonable suspicion justifying the stop.”
Dexter v. Ford Motor Co., 92 F. App'x 637 (10th Cir. 2004).
“§ 31-5-1402 (driver must seatbelt passengers under age twelve); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 66-7-372 (driver must seatbelt passengers less than eighteen).”
State v. Reed, 1998-NMSC-030, 964 P.2d 113.
· cites it 2× “See NMSA 1978, § 66-3-805(C) (1978) (rear license-plate light); § NMSA 1978, 66-7-372(A) (1989) (seat belt).”
State v. Montgomery, 2017-NMCA-065.
· cites it 2× “Defendant was also charged with negligent child abuse, no death or great bodily harm, pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 30-6-1(D) (2009), and not wearing seat belts, pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 66-7-372(A) (2001). {4} The following excerpts and arguments are relevant to this…”
State v Lucero, 508 P.3d 917 (N.M. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “Defendant, who appeared pro se, was permitted to question the jury panel and 1Driving while license suspended, NMSA 1978, § 66-5-39 (2013, amended 2019); no seat belts, NMSA 1978, § 66-7-372(A) (2001); no proof of insurance, NMSA 1978, § 66-5-229 (C)-(E) (1998, amended 2019); no…”
State v. Ochoa, 2006-NMCA-131, 144 P.3d 132.
· cites it 2× “This means that whenever a police officer charges a driver with such a violation, he must issue a uniform traffic citation to the driver, who has the option of agreeing to pay the assessment or to appear in court on the date specified in the citation.”
State v. Ochoa, 144 P.3d 132 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “This means that whenever a police officer charges a driver with such a violation, he must issue a uniform traffic citation to the driver, who has the option of agreeing to pay the assessment or to appear in court on the date specified in the citation.”
State v. Tapia, 2015-NMCA-055, 7 N.M. 743.
· cites it 2× “Defendant was arrested and charged with one count of forgery contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-16-10(A) (2006); one count of concealing his identity contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-22-3 (1963); and one count of seat belt violation contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 66-7-372…”
United States v. Barela, 561 F. App'x 738 (10th Cir. 2014).
“He issued citations to Barela for failing to wear a seatbelt, see N.M. Stat. § 66-7-372, “prohibited activities while driving” on account of the loud music, and other violations.”
N.M. Stat. § 66-7-372(A): 15 cases
State v. Tapia, 414 P.3d 332 (N.M. 2018).
“{5} Defendant was charged with forgery, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-16-10(A) (2006) ; concealing identity, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-22-3 (1963) ; and seat belt violation, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 66-7-372(A) (2001). {6} Defendant filed in the Eleventh…”
State v. Tapia, 2018-NMSC-017.
“{5} Defendant was charged with forgery, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-16-10(A) (2006); concealing identity, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-22-3 (1963); and seat belt violation, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 66-7-372(A) (2001). {6} Defendant filed in the Eleventh Judicial…”
Norwest Bank New Mexico, N.A. v. Chrysler Corp., 1999-NMCA-070, 981 P.2d 1215.
“The heart of the Act is Section 66-7-372, which requires that seat belts be worn by front-seat occupants of a motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight under five tons when the vehicle is traveling on a street or highway.”
State v. Apodaca, 814 P.2d 1030 (N.M. Ct. App. 1991).
“We find it unnecessary to decide whether defendant’s construction of Section 66-7-372 is correct. Even if it is, Officer Conticelli possessed sufficient information to establish reasonable suspicion justifying the stop.”
State v. Reed, 1998-NMSC-030, 964 P.2d 113.
“See NMSA 1978, § 66-3-805(C) (1978) (rear license-plate light); § NMSA 1978, 66-7-372(A) (1989) (seat belt).”
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.