State v. Maes, 149 N.M. 736

Defendant was charged in December 2008 with possession with intent to distribute an imitation controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia for events in October 2007 in Chimayo.
Two state police officers, wearing BDUs and operating an unmarked vehicle, conducted a traffic stop after observing traffic infractions.
The officers arrested Defendant after a license plate check revealed outstanding warrants and conducted a search incident to arrest.
Defendant moved to suppress all evidence, arguing the BDUs did not constitute a uniform under Sections 66-8-124(A) and -125(C).
The district court granted suppression, ruling BDUs were not uniforms; the State appealed seeking reversal of that ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a basic duty uniform qualifies as a uniform under 66-8-124(A) and 66-8-125(C).	State contends BDUs are uniforms and thus the statutes apply.	Maes argues BDUs are not uniforms under the statutes.	BDUs are uniforms under the statutes.

Archuleta v. State, 118 N.M. 160, 879 P.2d 792 (Ct. App. 1994) (established flexible, unrestrictive uniform definition and two-part test for uniform visibility and officer identification)
State v. Slayton, 147 N.M. 340, 223 P.3d 337 (N.M. 2009) (arrest includes temporary detentions; supports uniform interpretation applied here)
State v. Torres, 140 N.M. 230, 141 P.3d 1284 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006) (statutory interpretation standard for uniform requirements)