STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. ROY D. MONTANO, Defendant-Respondent, and STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WILLIAM DANIEL MARTINEZ, Defendant-Petitioner.
No. S-1-SC-37021 and No. S-1-SC-37098
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
June 11, 2020
Opinion Number: 2020-NMSC-009
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS ON CERTIORARI. District Judges Fred T. Van Soelen and Karen L. Townsend. Released for Publication August 11, 2020.
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
John J. Woykovsky, Assistant Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM
for State of New Mexico
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
Mary Barket, Assistant Appellate Defender
Santa Fe, NM
for Petitioner William Daniel Martinez
Eric D. Dixon
Portales, NM
for Respondent Roy D. Montano
VIGIL, Justice.
{1} These consolidated cases give us the opportunity to define “uniformed law enforcement officer” and “appropriately marked law enforcement vehicle” under
I. BACKGROUND
A. State v. Montano
{3} After an automobile pursuit, Curry County Sheriff‘s Deputy Glenn Russ arrested Defendant Roy Montano. The State charged Defendant Montano with one count of aggravated fleeing from a law enforcement officer,
{4} In his statement of probable cause, Deputy Russ wrote that he began to follow Defendant Montano after seeing a Hispanic male he initially believed to be an individual he knew to have had “a warrant in the past” get into a four-door Saturn and begin driving. Deputy Russ stated that his purpose in following this individual was to verify the driver‘s identity. After catching up to the Saturn and running the license plate, Deputy Russ learned that the plate was expired. Deputy Russ wrote that he then activated the emergency lights on his vehicle “to [e]ffect a traffic stop for the violation and positively identify the driver.” Deputy Russ stated that the vehicle did not stop, ran multiple stop signs, and drove in a manner that posed a safety risk to the public before sliding through an intersection, striking a curb, and coming to rest on an easement.
{5} Defendant Montano waived his right to a jury trial. At the bench trial the evidence included testimony from Deputy Russ that he worked as an “investigator” with the Curry County Sheriff‘s office and wore the clothing required of investigators: “a dress shirt with tie, dress slacks, and dress shoes.” Deputy Russ wore his badge displayed on the breast pocket of his shirt, but there was no testimony describing the badge itself, its wording, or the size of the wording. Deputy Russ drove a Ford Expedition that had no decals, striping, insignia, or lettering anywhere on the vehicle. However, the vehicle was equipped with wigwag headlights, red and blue flashing lights mounted in the front grill and the top rear window, flashing brake lights, and a siren. The vehicle also had a government license plate. The district court took judicial notice that the vehicle “was not a marked vehicle.”
{6} At the close of the State‘s case-in-chief, Defendant Montano moved for a directed verdict on the aggravated fleeing charge, asserting that the State failed to prove that Deputy Russ was uniformed or in an appropriately marked law enforcement vehicle, as required by
{7} The Court of Appeals reversed Defendant Montano‘s conviction. Montano, 2018-NMCA-047, ¶ 1. The Court of Appeals concluded that Deputy Russ‘s vehicle was an “appropriately marked law enforcement vehicle” as required by
B. State v. Martinez
{8} Defendant William Daniel Martinez was arrested pursuant to an arrest warrant and charged with one count of aggravated fleeing from a law enforcement officer,
{9} Prior to trial, Defendant Martinez filed a motion to dismiss the criminal information, asserting that that Deputy Gilbert “was in an unmarked vehicle, no more conspicuous than any other lay vehicle” when he attempted to stop Defendant Martinez. Defendant Martinez contended that Deputy Gilbert was therefore not in an appropriately marked law enforcement vehicle as required by
{10} After an evidentiary hearing, the district court granted Defendant Martinez‘s motion and dismissed the criminal information without prejudice. The district court found that the following facts were undisputed. Deputy Gilbert was on duty “driving a tan colored Ford Explorer law enforcement vehicle.” The vehicle was specifically furnished for covert operations intended to evade detection. “By design, the vehicle bore no insignias, stripes, decals, labels, seals, symbols or other pictorial signs or lettering indicating its identity as a law enforcement vehicle.” The vehicle was also equipped with “red and blue LED lights located within the grill area that were visible through the grill even when not activated.” In addition, the vehicle had a siren with speakers located inside the grill as well as “an antenna that is not common to civilian vehicles.”
{11} Under these facts the district court made the following conclusions of law. “To be marked, much less ‘appropriately marked,’ requires at minimum some type of readily observable insignia or lettering that conveys the identity or ownership of the vehicle.” In addition, “[t]he red and blue lights and the siren speakers located within the grill area of the vehicle were signaling devices, not identifying marks. To the extent the State argues these signaling devices satisfy” the requirement of
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
{13} These cases require us to construe
III. UNIFORMED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
{14} The State argues that when he stopped Defendant Montano, Deputy Russ was a “uniformed law enforcement officer” as required by
A. Court of Appeals Opinion
{15} In concluding that Deputy Russ was not uniformed at the time he attempted to stop Defendant Montano, the Court of Appeals organized its analysis around four topics: (1) the plain meaning of “uniform,” (2) New Mexico statutes related to the subject matter of
1. Plain meaning of “uniform”
{16} In Montano, the Court of Appeals began its analysis by considering the plain meaning of “uniform.” Id. ¶ 11. Looking to the definition stated in Webster‘s Third New International Dictionary 2498 (unabr. ed. 1986), the Court of Appeals observed that the meaning of “uniform” is “dress of a distinctive design or fashion adopted by or prescribed for members of a particular group . . . and serving as a means of identification.” Montano, 2018-NMCA-047, ¶ 11 (omission in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court of Appeals further observed that Webster‘s Third New International Dictionary 689 (unabr. ed. 1986) defines “dress” as “utilitarian or ornamental covering for the human body: as . . . clothing and accessories suitable to a specific purpose
{17} The Court of Appeals found these definitions significant for two reasons. The first is that “a uniform consists of clothing, as distinguished from, for example, only a law enforcement officer‘s badge.” Id. ¶ 12. In other words, the Court of Appeals noted that “equipment alone, without distinctive clothing, is not ‘dress of a distinctive design or fashion[,]’ i.e., it is not a uniform.” Id. (alteration in original) (citation omitted). In support of the conclusion that there is a meaningful distinction between a uniform and a badge, the Court of Appeals cited
{18} Under this construction of the plain meaning of “uniform,” the Court of Appeals determined that Deputy Russ was not uniformed at the time he initiated the stop of Defendant Montano because the Deputy‘s “clothing was not of a distinctive design or fashion and did not serve to identify him as a law enforcement officer.” Id. ¶ 13. Rather, “the purpose of his outfit was, if anything, to allow him to blend in with the general public.” Id. Further, while acknowledging that a badge or even handcuffs and a holstered firearm may identify the person as a law enforcement officer, they are not “clothing” and therefore not a uniform. Id.
2. Related New Mexico statutes
{19} The Court of Appeals next considered
NMSA 1978, § 29-2-13 (1989) (stating that the secretary of public safety shall “provide and issue” to all New Mexico state police officers “a uniform and an appropriate badge which shall contain in plain legible letters the words ‘New Mexico state police‘” (emphasis added)).NMSA 1978, § 29-2-14(A) (2015) (defining the crime of unauthorized wearing of a uniform or badge as “the wearing or requiring the wearing, without authorization by the secretary, of a uniform or badge or both whose material, color or design, or any combination of them, is such that the wearer appears to be a member of the New Mexico state police” (emphasis added)).NMSA 1978, § 30-22-1(C) (1981) (defining the crime of resisting, evading or obstructing an officer, as “willfully refusing to bring a vehicle to a stop when given a visual or audible signal to stop, whether by hand, voice, emergency light, flashing light, siren or other signal, by a uniformed officer in an appropriately marked police vehicle“).NMSA 1978, § 66-8-124(A) (2007) (stating that “[n]o person shall be arrested for violating the Motor Vehicle Code or other law relating to motor vehicles punishable as a misdemeanor except by a commissioned, salaried peace officer who, at the time of arrest, is wearing a uniform clearly indicating the peace officer‘s official status” (emphasis added)).NMSA 1978, § 66-8-125(C) (1978) (stating that “[m]embers of the New Mexico state police, sheriffs, and their salaried deputies and members of any municipal police force may not make [a warrantless] arrest for traffic violations if not in uniform” (emphasis added)).NMSA 1978, § 66-7-332(A) (2005, amended 2017) (stating that “[u]pon the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle displaying flashing emergency lights or when the driver is giving audible signal . . . , the driver of every other vehicleshall yield the right of way and shall immediately drive to a position parallel to, and as close as possible to, the right-hand edge or curb of the roadway clear of any intersection and shall stop and remain in that position until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed, except when otherwise directed by a police officer“); NMSA 1978, § 66-8-116(A) (2016, amended 2019) (assessing a $50 fine for violation ofSection 66-7-332 (2005)).
See Montano, 2018-NMCA-047, ¶¶ 6, 16-20.
{20} Construing the statute “in accordance with the plain meaning of ‘uniform[,]’ ” the Court of Appeals concluded that
{21} Second, the Court of Appeals noted that the legislative history of
{22} Third, the Court of Appeals noted that
{23} Finally, the Court of Appeals observed that
3. Related New Mexico case law
{24} considering the related case law, the Court of Appeals focused its analysis on State v. Archuleta, 1994-NMCA-072, 118 N.M. 160, 879 P.2d 792, and State v. Maes, 2011-NMCA-064, 149 N.M. 736, 255 P.3d 314. Montano, 2018-NMCA-047, ¶¶ 21-30.
{25} In Archuleta, the defendant was stopped for speeding. 1994-NMCA-072, ¶ 2. The officer who
{26} On appeal, the Court of Appeals, looking to the history of
{27} Reasoning that by wearing the windbreaker bearing the words “Albuquerque Police” in two places, a reasonable person would have inferred that the officer was in fact a peace officer. Id. ¶¶ 11-12. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals concluded that the facts established the objective test. Id. ¶ 12. In so concluding the Court of Appeals also rejected the defendant‘s argument that public policy supports the requirement that an officer making arrests or stops to issue citations must be in full uniform based on the risk of danger that citizens may be stopped by police impersonators. Id. ¶ 15. The Court of Appeals stated, “While we recognize that there is that risk, we are not persuaded that in this day and time when law enforcement uniforms are probably readily available, the risk would be that much lessened by requiring the officer to wear his or her full attire before making a stop or arrest.” Id.
{28} Similarly in Maes, the Court of Appeals considered whether the New Mexico State Police Basic Duty Uniform (BDU) constituted a “uniform” as used in
black pants; black boots; a black vest to which is attached an electronic communication device with a chord; a black long-sleeve shirt with the words “STATE POLICE” in large bold yellow lettering on the sleeves, the word “POLICE” in large bold white lettering on the right shoulder area, a smaller triangular cloth patch with
the words “STATE POLICE” also on the right shoulder; and, on the back of the shirt, the word “POLICE” in large bold white lettering in two places; an equipment belt, holster, and firearm; and a metal police badge hung from one of the front pockets.
Id. ¶ 11. Wearing BDUs and driving an unmarked vehicle, two New Mexico State Police officers stopped the defendant when they witnessed him engage in multiple traffic infractions. Id. ¶ 3. During the stop, the officers discovered that the defendant had outstanding warrants, conducted a search incident to arrest, and discovered imitation drugs and drug paraphernalia while carrying out their search. Id. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the drugs and paraphernalia, arguing in pertinent part that the stop was unlawful because the officers were not uniformed within the meaning of Sections
4. Absurd results
{29} Finally, the Court of Appeals considered whether applying the plain meaning of “uniform” to
{30} The Court of Appeals concluded by stating that it was immaterial that “an argument might be made that it would be better policy to allow nonuniformed law enforcement officers to make arrests for violation of
B. Analysis
{31} We conclude that the Court of Appeals interpretation of what constitutes a uniform under
{32} There is no indication in
{33} In People v. Mathews, 64 Cal. App. 4th 485, 490-91 (Ct. App. 1998), the California Court of Appeal considered whether a police officer in plain clothes donning a badge and displaying a firearm on his belt was in uniform for purposes of the California Vehicle Code statute prohibiting flight from a pursuing peace officer. The statute,
{34} The Appellate Court of Illinois reached a similar conclusion in People v. Williams, 2015 IL App (1st) 133582, ¶ 1, 44 N.E.3d 534. In Williams, a police officer driving a marked police vehicle but wearing “civilian dress” apprehended the defendant who fled from the officer when the officer pursued him for not fully coming to a stop at a stop sign. Id. ¶ 3. The defendant was convicted of “aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer” in violation of
{35} The State argues that the Court of Appeals reliance on a definition of “uniform” in Webster‘s Third New International Dictionary 2498 (unabr. ed. 1986) fails to support the Court‘s own conclusion that a badge, by itself, is not a uniform. Specifically, the State asserts that to define a uniform as “‘clothing and accessories’ of a ‘distinctive design . . . serving as a means of identification‘” does not mean “that the clothing alone must be distinctive.” The State asserts instead that the definition means “the clothing and accessories must be distinctive when considered together.” In other words, the State asserts that even under the Court of Appeals definition of uniform, Deputy Russ‘s dress “need not be the sole, or even primary means” of identifying him as a police officer. We reject the State‘s alternative construction.
{37} In the context of
{38} We therefore conclude that Deputy Russ‘s attire which included “a dress shirt with tie, dress slacks, and dress shoes” was not a uniform as required by
IV. APPROPRIATELY MARKED LAW ENFORCEMENT VEHICLE
{39} Defendant Martinez argues that the Court of Appeals interpretation of “appropriately marked law enforcement vehicle” in Montano, 2018-NMCA-047, was flawed in view of the plain meaning of
A. Court of Appeals Opinion
{40} To reiterate, the district court ruled that Deputy Gilbert was not in an “appropriately marked law enforcement vehicle” when he attempted to stop Defendant Martinez. Deputy Gilbert was driving a tan colored Ford Explorer, an “unmarked patrol vehicle” used in covert operations to evade detection. “By design, the vehicle bore no insignias, stripes, decals, labels, seals, symbols or other
{41} In Montano the Court of Appeals began its analysis of whether an unmarked police car may constitute an “‘appropriately marked’ law enforcement vehicle” by looking to the plain meaning of “appropriately marked.” 2018-NMCA-047, ¶¶ 35-36. Using Webster‘s Third New International Dictionary 1382 (unabr. ed. 1986), the Court of Appeals observed that “mark” may be defined as “something that gives evidence of something else” or “a character, device, label, brand, seal, or other sign put on an article esp[ecially] to show the maker or owner, to certify quality, or for identification.” Montano, 2018-NMCA-047, ¶ 36 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). Based on these definitions the Court of Appeals stated, “In the context of
{42} The Court of Appeals also recognized that a “marked” police vehicle “commonly refers to a vehicle with lettering, insignia, or striped paint that would indicate the driver of the vehicle is a law enforcement officer” and that an “unmarked” police vehicle “refers to a vehicle without any such graphic markings on the exterior.” Id. ¶ 38. Thus, the Court of Appeals concluded that the phrase “appropriately marked” is ambiguous and cited this ambiguity as a basis for not applying the plain meaning of the words. Id. ¶ 39. The Court of Appeals therefore looked to legislative intent as an alternative for determining what “[appropriately] marked law enforcement vehicle” means under
{43} The Court of Appeals concluded that “the intent of
Upon the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle displaying flashing emergency lights or when the driver is giving audible signal by siren, exhaust whistle or bell, the driver of every other vehicle shall yield the right of way and shall immediately drive to a position parallel to, and as close as possible to, the right-hand edge or curb of the roadway clear of any intersection and shall stop and remain in that position until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed, except when otherwise directed by a police officer.
{44} Finally, the Court of Appeals considered whether its conclusion that the siren and combination of flashing and alternating lights, with which Deputy Russ‘s Ford Expedition was equipped, satisfied the “appropriately marked” requirement of the aggravated fleeing statute, thereby rendering the additional language in the statute surplusage and meaningless contrary to the canons of statutory construction. Montano, 2018-NMCA-047, ¶ 44. To reiterate once again,
{45} In a brief analysis of this question, the Court of Appeals concluded that its construction of the statute did not render another portion of the statute superfluous. Montano, 2018-NMCA-047, ¶ 45. The Court of Appeals gave three reasons in support of its conclusion. First, the Court of Appeals stated that the “visual or audible signal to stop” required by
{46} As an aside, the Court of Appeals concluded its discussion by stating that it was “sensitive to the public concern expressed . . . about persons posing as law enforcement officers in vehicles equipped with emergency lights and sirens who stop and prey upon other motorists.” Id. ¶ 46. The Court of Appeals added that it has “no evidence
B. Analysis
{47} “[I]t is part of the essence of judicial responsibility to search for and effectuate the legislative intent—the purpose or object—underlying the statute.” State ex rel. Helman v. Gallegos, 1994-NMSC-023, ¶ 23, 117 N.M. 346, 871 P.2d 1352. Judicial responsibility compels our conclusion that the Court of Appeals analysis of
1. Plain meaning of “appropriately marked”
{48} In considering the plain meaning of “appropriately marked,” the Court of Appeals focused on “mark” as “something that gives evidence of something else” or “a character, device, label, brand, seal, or other sign put on an article esp[ecially] to show the maker or owner, to certify quality, or for identification.” Montano, 2018-NMCA-047, ¶ 36 (alteration in original) (emphasis omitted) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Acknowledging that an “appropriately marked” law enforcement vehicle means “the vehicle in question is marked in a manner that is suitable for being driven by a law enforcement officer and identified as such,” id. ¶ 37, the Court of Appeals glossed over the significance of “appropriate” as a statutory element of
{49} Webster‘s Third New International Dictionary 106 (unabr. ed. 1986) states that “appropriate” means “specially suitable” including “specially suitable to [a] use.” It follows that a plain meaning construction of “appropriately marked law enforcement vehicle” contemplates that such a vehicle must bear “a character, device, label, brand, seal, or other sign” that not only makes it suitable to be driven by a law enforcement officer, but also that sets it apart as specially suitable to law enforcement use. See id. at 106, 1382. As discussed further below, even assuming that a siren and lights constitute devices that fall into the category of markings, such markings alone are insufficient to set apart a vehicle as specially suitable to law enforcement use and therefore do not satisfy the requirement of
2. Ambiguity in the Court of Appeals construction of “appropriately marked”
{50} The Court of Appeals acknowledged the patent ambiguity in its construction of “appropriately marked” as including Deputy Russ‘s Ford Expedition that bore no decals, striping, insignia, or lettering anywhere on the vehicle. See Montano, 2018-NMCA-047, ¶¶ 38-43. In its attempt to resolve the ambiguity, the Court of Appeals looked to the legislative intent of
{51} Defendant Martinez asserts that the Court of Appeals analysis is contrary to the “history, background, structure of the statute, and its interplay with other [related] statutes” aimed at effectuating the Legislature‘s goal of making police vehicles engaged in pursuits highly visible to both defendants and to the general public—“a goal which is best served by interpreting ‘appropriately marked law enforcement vehicle’ in accordance with its commonly understood meaning” under
{52} The Court of Appeals relied heavily on
{53} The Court of Appeals analysis of the legislative intent of
{54} Even assuming that it is reasonable for members of the public to infer that all vehicles equipped with flashing lights alone or flashing lights and a siren are “authorized emergency vehicles,” there is no basis for a member of the public to infer from the same characteristics that such a vehicle must be a law enforcement vehicle. See D‘Val Westphal, Rainbow of flashing vehicle lights confusing, Albuquerque J., July 16, 2018, https://www.abqjournal.com/1197014/rainbow-of-flashing-vehicle-lights-confusing.html (last visited February 3, 2020) (discussing the confusion of the public concerning what vehicles and departments/organizations can use which type of vehicle lights and how a driver should respond based on the myriad of vehicles that currently use flashing lights).
{55} Deputy Russ‘s unmarked tan Ford Expedition may be unmarked for good reasons, including the ability to conduct covert investigations while avoiding detection by the public and, more importantly, by those being investigated. The stealthy functioning of Deputy Russ‘s vehicle is admittedly different than the functioning of the marked vehicles used by police who conduct regular traffic stops and interact with the public on a regular basis. Reiterating the definition of “mark” as that which provides identification, we cannot conclude that lights or a siren are unique in identifying a police officer‘s vehicle where emergency vehicles, tow trucks, and even civilian vehicles may be equipped with these same signaling devices.
{56} Rather, in accordance with the plain meaning of the phrase “appropriately marked,” the only meaningful way to set apart a law enforcement vehicle as specially suitable for police use, and in so doing to ensure that members of the public understand in a given situation that they are being
3. Surplusage in Section 30-22-1.1(A) resulting from the Court of Appeals construction of the statute
{57} Finally, the Court of Appeals concluded that its interpretation of
{58} In support of its conclusion, as noted previously the Court of Appeals relied on the dissent in Hudson, 136 P.3d at 177, in which Justice Moreno wrote that “the requirement that a police vehicle must be distinctively marked can be satisfied, in part, by the same evidence used to establish the additional requirements that the vehicle exhibit a red lamp that is visible from the front and that the suspect reasonably should have seen, and sound a siren as reasonably necessary.” Because this was neither the majority view of the California Supreme Court nor a position consistent with the view any other case addressing the issue has taken, we are unpersuaded. To the contrary, the opposite conclusion was reached by the Court of Appeals of Maryland in Williams v. State, 24 A.3d 210, 233-34 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2011) (concluding that an unmarked police car equipped with only lights and sirens did not constitute an appropriately marked police vehicle within the meaning of the state statute that prohibits “attempting to elude a police officer” because reading the statute to permit an officer‘s activation of lights and sirens to satisfy the requirement that the officer give a visual or audible signal to stop and also the requirement that the officer be in an appropriately marked police vehicle would render the language requiring the marking of a police vehicle superfluous and meaningless (citation omitted)).
{59} Nor are we persuaded by the Court of Appeals alternatively stated rationale in support of its conclusion: (1) Flashing lights and a siren may not be the police officer‘s only visual signal to stop or (2) not all of the equipment Deputy Russ activated during his pursuit of Defendant Montano (i.e., siren, flashing red and blue lights, and wigwag headlights) was required to signal Defendant Montano to stop. See Montano, 2018-NMCA-047, ¶ 45. Simply put, if under the plain meaning of “appropriately marked,” lights and a siren do not set a vehicle apart as specially suitable law for law enforcement use, such equipment in any combination can in no case stand as evidence of appropriate markings for a law enforcement vehicle for purposes of
4. The law in other jurisdictions
{60} For all the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in its conclusion in Montano that the vehicle driven by Deputy Russ was an “appropriately marked law enforcement vehicle.” The weight of authority from other states gives added support to our conclusion.
{61} Under a 1983 version of Washington law, the crime of eluding a police officer required, in part, that the officer the perpetrator was eluding be in a “vehicle [that] shall be appropriately marked showing it to be an official police vehicle.”
we must assume that the [l]egislature intended to require something more than the presence of activated emergency equipment in order to render a police vehicle appropriately marked for purposes of the eluding statute. That “something more” the [l]egislature required is a “mark,” which, under the ordinary meaning of the term, means an insignia identifying the vehicle as an official police vehicle.
{62} Other states, including Louisiana, Maryland, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and California have reached similar conclusions construing their fleeing and eluding a police officer statutes. See State v. Harris, 261 So. 3d 149, 154-56 (La. Ct. App. 2018) (determining under the Louisiana statute criminalizing flight from an officer, which requires the use of a marked police vehicle, that a police car equipped with emergency lights, a siren, and spotlights but no other marking or insignia did not constitute a marked police vehicle); Williams, 24 A.3d at 234) (concluding that an unmarked police car equipped with only lights and sirens did not constitute an appropriately marked police vehicle within the meaning of the Maryland statute prohibiting knowing failure to stop a vehicle when signaled by a police officer in an appropriately marked police vehicle because “[r]eading the statute to permit an officer‘s activation of lights and sirens to satisfy [both] the requirement that the officer give a visual or audible signal to stop and the requirement that the officer be in” an appropriately marked police vehicle would render the language requiring the marking of a police vehicle superfluous and meaningless); State v. Erdman, 422 N.W.2d 808, 809-10 (N.D. 1988) (concluding that the defendant, pursued by plain-clothed officers driving unmarked vehicles, could not be convicted of fleeing or attempting to elude police officers for willfully refusing to stop a vehicle under the North Dakota statute that required uniformed officers driving official marked police vehicles); Commonwealth. v. Durrett King, 195 A.3d 255, 262 (Pa. 2018) (determining, for purposes of the Pennsylvania statute prohibiting attempts to elude a pursuing police vehicle, that the term “markings” does not include the lights and siren on a police car and only includes the “graphics or decals identifying the department or agency of the vehicle“); State v. Opperman, 456 N.W.2d 625, 626-28 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990) (concluding that a police vehicle equipped with only red lights and a siren and no police department insignia or decals was not a “marked police vehicle” for purposes of the Wisconsin statute prohibiting a knowing attempt to elude or flee a police officer in a marked police vehicle, notwithstanding that the defendant accelerated his vehicle when he saw the vehicle with red lights engaged); see also Hudson, 136 P.3d at 175 (stating that in order to establish that a police vehicle is distinctively marked for purposes of the California statute that prohibits willful fleeing or attempting to a elude a police officer‘s motor vehicle, “a pursuing police vehicle must have distinguishing features in addition to a red light and siren“).
{63} Additionally, the Indiana Court of Appeals acknowledged the importance of police officer recognition in protecting the public from police impersonators. In doing so, it cited its statute requiring an officer to be “(1) wearing a distinctive uniform and a badge of authority; or (2) operating a motor vehicle that is clearly marked as a police vehicle[] that will clearly show the officer or the officer‘s vehicle to casual observations to be an officer or a police vehicle[.]” Ervin v. State, 968 N.E.2d 315, 318 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “The statute seeks to help distinguish law enforcement officers from those individuals
{64} A minority of jurisdictions, including Kansas, Massachusetts, and Ohio have reached the opposite conclusion concerning whether lights and a siren on an otherwise unmarked police vehicle are sufficient markings for purposes of those state statutes that prohibit fleeing and eluding a law enforcement officer. See State v. Parker, 430 P.3d 975, 984 (Kan. 2018); Commonwealth v. Ross, 896 N.E.2d 647, 649-50 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008); State v. Bradley, 55 N.E.3d 580, 584-85 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). We do not find this minority of cases persuasive.
5. Result
{65} Applying the foregoing analysis to the facts in the case of Defendant Martinez, we hold that the district court correctly concluded that the vehicle Deputy Gilbert was driving when he attempted to stop Defendant Martinez was not “an appropriately marked law enforcement vehicle” as required by
{66} Without more, like the Ford Expedition Deputy Russ drove in Montano, the lights, siren, and antenna that equipped Deputy Gilbert‘s Ford Explorer were insufficient to constitute appropriate markings indicating to the public that the vehicle was in fact a law enforcement vehicle in accordance with the plain meaning of the statute and legislative intent underlying
V. CONCLUSION
{67} We affirm the holding of the Court of Appeals in Montano in part, and we reverse in part. Specifically, we affirm the holding that Deputy Russ was not “a uniformed law enforcement officer” as required by
{68} IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Justice
WE CONCUR:
BARBARA J. VIGIL, Justice
C. SHANNON BACON, Justice
DAVID K. THOMSON, Justice
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. ROY D. MONTANO, Defendant-Respondent, and STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WILLIAM DANIEL MARTINEZ, Defendant-Petitioner.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
NAKAMURA, Chief Justice (dissenting).
{69} Imagine a driver looks in his side mirror as he approaches a stop sign and recognizes, behind him, a law enforcement officer whom the driver personally knows. The driver then rolls through the stop sign and takes off. When the driver takes off, the officer engages his vehicle‘s red and blue lights and siren, signaling the driver to stop. Instead of pulling over, the driver continues to speed away, revving his engine and taking wide turns at intersections, locking up his brakes. There are many other vehicles on the road, including one with a child in an infant seat, and several bystanders. The officer pursues the driver, but ultimately abandons the chase as too dangerous. Later, the driver is
{70} The majority holds that Defendant Martinez is not criminally liable for aggravated fleeing under these circumstances, because the pursuing officer‘s vehicle did not bear “decals or other prominent and visible insignia,” Maj. op. ¶ 56, and was therefore not “appropriately marked” within the meaning of the statute. Similarly, in the companion case of Defendant Montano, the majority holds that a prominently displayed badge, together with professional attire, is not a “uniform” within the meaning of the statute, because a uniform must include clothing of a distinctive design. Maj. op. ¶¶ 37-38. Thus, the majority treats an officer‘s appropriately marked vehicle and uniform as elements of the crime of aggravated fleeing, and relies primarily upon dictionary and technical regulatory definitions to interpret those elements. In doing so, the majority places some defendants who know that their pursuer is law enforcement—a defendant like Martinez—beyond the reach of the aggravated fleeing statute.
{71} I respectfully dissent. The terms at issue are not standalone elements of the crime of aggravated fleeing; rather, they are identifying factors bearing on the defendant‘s knowledge that he is evading law enforcement. I would therefore adopt a test similar to the test established by the Court of Appeals in Archuleta, 1994-NMCA-072, ¶ 11: namely, that a jury may find the knowledge element of the statute to be satisfied where an officer‘s uniform, vehicle, and other circumstances surrounding the interaction between the officer and the defendant are sufficient to notify a reasonable person that he has been signaled to stop by law enforcement. A jury may also consider evidence of a defendant‘s subjective knowledge that his pursuer was police. Explained in further detail below is why the construction I propose (1) is contextual; (2) furthers, rather than compromises the intent of the legislature to protect the public from drivers who knowingly and recklessly evade law enforcement; and (3) is consistent with our interpretation of other statutory uses of similar terms. Next, explained under this standard, is why I would affirm Defendant Montano‘s conviction and remand Defendant Martinez‘s case for further proceedings consistent with this dissent.
I. CONTEXTUAL INTERPRETATION
{72} “[I]t is a fundamental principle of statutory construction (and, indeed, of language itself) that the meaning of a word cannot be determined in isolation, but must be drawn from the context in which it is used[.]” Yates v. United States, 574 U.S. 528, 537 (2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Context may, and often does, explain why dictionary definitions are plainly inapplicable. Id.; accord Cummings v. X-Ray Assocs., 1996-NMSC-035, ¶ 45, 121 N.M. 821, 918 P.2d 1321. Here, the statutory context of the terms before us is as follows:
A. Aggravated fleeing a law enforcement officer consists of a person willfully and carelessly driving his vehicle in a manner that endangers the life of another person after being given a visual or audible signal to stop, whether by hand, voice, emergency light, flashing light, siren or other signal, by a uniformed law enforcement officer in an appropriately marked law enforcement vehicle in pursuit in accordance with the provisions of the Law Enforcement Safe Pursuit Act [LESPA] [
NMSA 1978, § 29-20-1 to -4 (2003)].
{73} An attendant circumstance is “[a] fact that is situationally relevant to a particular event or occurrence.” Circumstance,
{74} Aggravated fleeing likewise requires proof of an act toward an officer (fleeing) as an attendant circumstance, and the knowledge requirement of the statute carries over to that circumstance. Padilla, 2008-NMSC-006, ¶ 15-16. Uniforms and appropriately marked cars are obvious identifiers of law enforcement, and thus their inclusion in the statute is unsurprising, particularly because the statute specifically addresses reckless evasion by vehicle. However, that is no reason to treat these identifiers as elements of the crime, much less to define them strictly. Rather, as in the aggravated battery context, the defendant‘s mental state—not the officer‘s conduct or even appearance—must be the touchstone of the knowledge requirement. See id. ¶ 11 (“Criminal liability is typically defined by the conduct of the accused, not the conduct of the police officer or the law enforcement agency tasked to enforce the criminal code.“).
II. LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND AVOIDING ABSURD RESULTS
{75} Legislative intent, the lodestar of statutory construction, State v. Chavez, 1966-NMSC-217, ¶ 7, 77 N.M. 79, 419 P.2d 456, also favors the pragmatic framework proposed in this dissent. The purpose of the aggravated fleeing statute is to avoid the public hazard created by drivers who knowingly and recklessly evade law enforcement. Padilla, 2008-NMSC-006, ¶ 21 (“The statute appears to be designed to protect the general public from the dangers of a high speed chase.“); see Aaron Baca, State v. Padilla: An Aggravated Reading of the State‘s Aggravated Fleeing a Police Officer Statute, 39 N.M. L. Rev. 485, 488 (2009) (citing Leslie Linthicum, Wrong Place, Wrong Time, Albuquerque J., Sept. 9, 2001, at A1 and David Miles, Bill Beefs Up Penalties for Fleeing From Officers, Albuquerque J., Feb. 15, 2002, at A10) (discussing that, two years before the aggravated fleeing statute‘s enactment, six people were killed in traffic accidents caused by defendants fleeing officers). In State v. Vest, 2018-NMCA-060, ¶ 8, 428 P.3d 287, cert. granted (S-1-SC-37210, Sept. 24, 2018), the Court of Appeals noted that, upon passing the aggravated fleeing statute, a fourth-degree felony, the Legislature nevertheless retained, as a misdemeanor offense, the statute criminalizing resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer, including vehicular flight from an officer, in Section 30-22-1. The State is required to prove, under any of the subsections in the misdemeanor statute, that the defendant took some resistive, evasive, or
{76} Given this purpose, it is difficult to conceive that the Legislature intended only defendants pursued by vehicles with decals or insignias and officers in sufficiently distinctive clothing to come within the ambit of the aggravated fleeing statute, especially where—as in Defendant Martinez‘s case—there is evidence of the defendant‘s subjective knowledge that he was being pursued by police. Nor do I think Defendant Martinez‘s case is an isolated one. Many of our citizens live in “small towns where everyone knows the constable and recognizes his official status.” Archuleta, 1994-NMCA-072, ¶ 11. Even in larger counties, drivers may recognize officers with whom they have had past encounters. I also note that, while the statute provides that any pursuit which may form the basis of an aggravated fleeing charge shall be “in accordance with the provisions of the [LESPA],”
{77} Beyond this, I am compelled to point out the absurd results—results contradictory to the statute‘s intent—posed by the majority‘s narrow interpretation of the terms at issue. This Court has long held that “[n]o rule of construction necessitates our acceptance of an interpretation resulting in patently absurd consequences.” State v. Davis, 2003-NMSC-022, ¶ 13, 134 N.M. 172, 74 P.3d 1064 (quoting United States v. Brown, 333 U.S. 18, 27 (1948)). “[T]he principles of strict statutory construction of penal statutes must not override common sense and the evident statutory purpose.” Id.; see also State v. Llewellyn, 1917-NMSC-031, ¶¶ 42-44, 23 N.M. 43, 167 P. 414. Officers are required by the LESPA to terminate vehicular pursuit if the danger to the community outweighs whatever benefits might flow from immediate capture of a fleeing suspect. See
{78} Similar problems attend the majority‘s construction of “uniform.” Again, defendants may never see the pursuing officer‘s uniform during flight. Yet, according to the majority, the defendant may only be convicted of aggravated fleeing if the State proves that the officer was wearing sufficiently distinctive clothing rather than a badge or other law enforcement equipment. Maj. op. ¶ 37-38.
{79} The majority maintains that a strict construction is necessary, because to do otherwise would render the terms at issue superfluous.
III. CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION 66-8-124(A)
{80} For their interpretation of “uniform,” both the Court of Appeals and the majority also distinguish prior caselaw interpreting this word in the context of the statute regulating arrests for violations of the motor vehicle code. Montano, 2018-NMCA-047, ¶¶ 21-30; Maj. op. ¶¶ 24-28. However, nothing in that statute or related caselaw compels the conclusion that the Legislature intended the word “uniform” to be read strictly in the aggravated fleeing context. Rather, the caselaw interpreting “uniform,” in Sections
{81} Sections
{82} Arguably, a similar test is more fitting in the aggravated fleeing context for the following reasons. The uniform requirement in
{83} It is important to clarify that neither the test posed here, nor the test in Archuleta, eliminates a jury‘s authority to assess and judge what a defendant knew at the time of flight. The jury is free to find, as a matter of fact, that a defendant fleeing an officer could not be expected to discern that the person fled was police. What I do not accept is the notion that our Legislature meant to embed in the aggravated fleeing statute the presumption that a defendant can only know that he or she is fleeing police when police are formally attired and operating a vehicle with decals or insignia.
IV. APPLICATION OF A PRAGMATIC CONSTRUCTION IN THE CONSOLIDATED CASES BEFORE US
A. Montano
{84} The district court in Montano shared the conclusions reached in this writing. 2018-NMCA-047, ¶¶ 40-42. The court concluded that Padilla viewed the statute‘s uniform and vehicle provisions as “the backdrop against which the defendant‘s knowledge is evaluated because it‘s the defendant‘s knowledge of the officer that‘s the important thing under the statute.” The court further determined that the adequacy of the lights, sirens, or other markings on the police vehicle had to be evaluated given “the purpose of the law.” Looking to that purpose, the court found that the officer‘s vehicle (equipped with wig wag headlights, red and blue flashing lights, a siren, and flashing brake lights) was appropriately marked “because when the lights turn on, people have the understanding they are to pull over, pull to the side of the road when they see law enforcement lights turn on.” The court then explained that “when the lights turned on . . . the defendant did not stop. He actually accelerated. When [the officer] turned on his siren, the defendant accelerated more.” The court also concluded that the officer‘s prominently-displayed badge sufficed as a uniform. The court concluded, following a bench trial, that Defendant Montano knew he was evading a police officer who had signaled him to stop.
{85} Because the deputy‘s vehicle‘s lights and siren would give a reasonable person notice that law enforcement was signaling him or her to stop, as would—to the extent it was observed by Defendant Montano—the deputy‘s prominently displayed badge, and because Defendant Montano‘s stepped acceleration suggests that he knew he was being signaled to stop by law enforcement, I would find that his conviction was supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed.
A. Martinez
{86} The facts in Defendant Martinez‘s case were described at the outset of this dissent. Prior to his trial, Defendant Martinez filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the officer‘s allegedly inconspicuous vehicle was not appropriately marked. After a hearing, the district court determined that the aggravated fleeing statute requires the “pursuing officer be in an appropriately marked law enforcement vehicle.” Thus, although the district court had “no doubt about the veracity of [the officer‘s] testimony that” Defendant Martinez “recognized that he was being followed by a law enforcement vehicle even before the Deputy activated his lights and siren,” the court was not persuaded that the officer‘s car was “appropriately marked,” for reasons similar to those articulated by the majority, and dismissed the case.
{87} Because I would hold that an appropriately marked car is not a statutory element, that the lights and sirens on Defendant Martinez‘s car would notify a reasonable person of the officer‘s identity as law enforcement, and that evidence of Defendant Martinez‘s subjective knowledge should be weighed by the fact-finder, I would reverse the district court‘s order and remand Defendant Martinez‘s case for further proceedings consistent with this dissent.
V. CONCLUSION
{88} The interpretation set forth in this dissent is not an attempt to judicially amend a legislative enactment. Rather, I believe it furthers the intent of our Legislature to suppress a meaningful social evil. As Justice Holmes wisely observed, “the general purpose [of legislation] is a more important aid to the meaning than any rule which grammar
JUDITH K. NAKAMURA, Chief Justice