State v. Montano, 423 P.3d 1

Deputy Glenn Russ (Curry County Sheriff’s Office investigator) in civilian dress (dress shirt, tie, slacks) with badge displayed stopped Montano after observing expired registration; he drove an unlettered Ford Expedition equipped with red/blue flashing lights, wigwag headlights, flashing brake lights, and a siren.
Russ engaged lights then siren; Montano fled through residential streets, ran stop signs, and stopped after vehicle jumped a curb; pursuit lasted a few minutes; Russ arrested Montano.
Montano was convicted at bench trial of aggravated fleeing under NMSA 1978 § 30-22-1.1(A) (LESPA-based felony) and received maximum sentence; he appealed arguing the pursuing officer was not "uniformed" and not in an "appropriately marked law enforcement vehicle."
District court found the vehicle unmarked but ruled Russ’s badge sufficed as a uniform; appellate court reviewed statutory meaning de novo.
The court held Russ’s vehicle satisfied "appropriately marked" (lights/siren/wigwag made it identifiable as a law enforcement emergency vehicle) but his civilian clothing plus badge did not constitute a "uniform" under the plain meaning of the statute.

Issue	State's Argument	Montano's Argument	Held
Whether the pursuing officer was "uniformed" under § 30-22-1.1(A)	Badge alone or badge + typical investigator clothing/equipment suffices as a uniform; Archuleta/Maes support nontraditional uniforms	Street clothes (shirt/tie/slacks) plus badge are not a uniform	Officer was not "uniformed": uniform means distinctive clothing identifying membership in law enforcement; badge/equipment alone are not clothing and do not meet plain meaning
Whether the vehicle was "appropriately marked" under § 30-22-1.1(A)	Lights/siren and wigwag/headlight pattern are sufficient to mark a law enforcement vehicle	Vehicle lacked lettering/insignia; without insignia lights could belong to other emergency vehicles and are insufficient	Vehicle was "appropriately marked": combination of red/blue flashing lights, wigwag headlights, and siren met both the plain meaning and legislative intent to identify an emergency law enforcement vehicle
Whether applying the plain meanings renders statutory elements redundant or absurd	Argued that requiring insignia for vehicle or expanding uniform beyond badge is unnecessary	Argued that if lights satisfy both elements, the separate "visual or audible signal" language becomes surplusage	Court held elements are materially distinct; overlap does not render text superfluous and legislative intent (defendant’s knowledge he is fleeing an officer) is preserved

State v. Archuleta, 879 P.2d 792 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994) (adopted objective two-part test for when nontraditional dress suffices as "uniform")
State v. Maes, 255 P.3d 314 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011) (upheld that marked garments and badges/bdu-style gear can satisfy "uniform")
State v. Padilla, 176 P.3d 299 (N.M. 2008) (explained uniform + marked car + signal establish defendant's knowledge and are elements of aggravated fleeing)
People v. Estrella, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 383 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (found wigwag lights, red/blue flashing lights, and siren can make an unmarked car "distinctively marked")
State v. Tafoya, 237 P.3d 693 (N.M. 2010) (standard that statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo)