1. A. No person shall, at or in any building or other facility or property owned, operated or controlled by the state or any of its political subdivisions, willfully deny to staff, public officials or the general public:

   1. (1) lawful freedom of movement within the building or facility or the land on which it is situated;
   2. (2) lawful use of the building or facility or the land on which it is situated; or
   3. (3) the right of lawful ingress and egress to the building or facility or the land on which it is situated.
2. B. No person shall, at or in any building or other facility or property owned, operated or controlled by the state or any of its political subdivision [subdivisions], willfully impede the staff or a public official or a member of the general public through the use of restraint, abduction, coercion or intimidation or when force and violence are present or threatened.
3. C. No person shall willfully refuse or fail to leave the property of or any building or other facility owned, operated or controlled by the state or any of its political subdivisions when requested to do so by a lawful custodian of the building, facility or property if the person is committing, threatens to commit or incites others to commit any act which would disrupt, impair, interfere with or obstruct the lawful mission, processes, procedures or functions of the property, building or facility.
4. D. No person shall willfully interfere with the educational process of any public or private school by committing, threatening to commit or inciting others to commit any act which would disrupt, impair, interfere with or obstruct the lawful mission, processes, procedures or functions of a public or private school.
5. E. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent lawful assembly and peaceful and orderly petition for the redress of grievances, including any labor dispute.
6. F. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a petty misdemeanor.

History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-20-10, enacted by Laws 1970, ch. 86, § 2; 1975, ch. 52, § 2; 1981, ch. 32, § 1.

ANNOTATIONS

Bracketed material. — The bracketed material was inserted by the compiler and is not part of the law.

Statutory standard to sustain a conviction under Subsection D. — Section 30-20-13(D) NMSA 1978 refers to a defendant’s intent to do some further act or achieve some additional consequence, interference with the educational process, and therefore 30-20-13(D) NMSA 1978 is a specific intent crime; the actus reas of the offense is threatening to commit any act which would disrupt, impair, interfere with or obstruct the lawful mission, processes, procedures or functions of a public or private school. State v. Quintin C., 2019-NMCA-069.

Insufficient evidence to support conviction for willful interference with the educational process. — Where, based on evidence presented by the state that child stated that he was creating a “kill list”, the trial judge erred in finding that child committed the delinquent act of willfully interfering with the educational process by threatening to commit an act that would disrupt the lawful mission, processes, procedures or functions of the school, because the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard to an essential element of the offense. There was insufficient evidence to support child’s conviction. State v. Quintin C., 2019-NMCA-069.

Criminal trespass charges not a means to enforce rule until filing. — Criminal trespass charges under Section 30-20-13 NMSA 1978 are not a means to enforce a rule available to the state until the rule is properly filed in compliance with State Rules Act (Section 14-4-1 NMSA 1978). State v. Joyce, 1980-NMCA-086, 94 N.M. 618, 614 P.2d 30.

Flexibility not vagueness. — Subsection C of this section, referring prior to 1975 amendment specifically to institutions of higher education, allowed control of campus disturbances in terms marked by flexibility and reasonable breadth, rather than meticulous specificity, and was not void for vagueness. State v. Silva, 1974-NMCA-072, 86 N.M. 543, 525 P.2d 903, cert. denied, 86 N.M. 528, 525 P.2d 888 (decided under prior law).

Campus restrictions not overbroad. — Since this section, referring in Subsection C, prior to 1975 amendment, specifically to institutions of higher education, vindicated significant government interest in the control of campus disturbances, reasonable "time, place and manner" regulations were valid even though they incidentally suppressed otherwise protected conduct. State v. Silva, 1974-NMCA-072, 86 N.M. 543, 525 P.2d 903, cert. denied, 86 N.M. 528, 525 P.2d 888 (decided under prior law).

No invalid delegation of power. — Subsection C of this section specifies adequate standards and guidelines to be followed, in that criminality is based first on a refusal to leave after requests, and second on a determination by the judge or jury that the person committed the specified disruptive acts. State v. Silva, 1974-NMCA-072, 86 N.M. 543, 525 P.2d 903, cert. denied, 86 N.M. 528, 525 P.2d 888 (decided under prior law).

Nor unbridled discretion. — Subsection C of this section does not put unbridled discretion in the hands of the administrator or police officer because the decision of each must be checked by the decision of the other, and the discretion of both is limited by the reasonably precise directive of the statute. State v. Silva, 1974-NMCA-072, 86 N.M. 543, 525 P.2d 903, cert. denied, 86 N.M. 528, 525 P.2d 888 (decided under prior law).

Meaning of "impair". — The term "impair" in Subsection C means, in context, a substantial physical diminution or damage and not just any diminution in quality. State v. Silva, 1974-NMCA-072, 86 N.M. 543, 525 P.2d 903, cert. denied, 86 N.M. 528, 525 P.2d 888 (decided under prior law).

Substantial physical invasion required. — The word "impair," along with the other operative verbs of present Subsection C (which subsection prior to 1975 amendment referred specifically to institutions of higher education), denotes a substantial physical invasion, and requires interference with the actual functioning of the university. State v. Silva, 1974-NMCA-072, 86 N.M. 543, 525 P.2d 903, cert. denied, 86 N.M. 528, 525 P.2d 888 (decided under prior law).

Willfulness and intent essential. — Not only must the refusal contemplated by Subsection C of this section be willful but the disruption must also be accompanied by general intent. State v. Silva, 1974-NMCA-072, 86 N.M. 543, 525 P.2d 903, cert. denied, 86 N.M. 528, 525 P.2d 888 (decided under prior law).

Application constitutional. — Defendants' refusal to honor the request of the university president to leave his office although he had appointments to keep, substantially interfered with the functioning of the president's business, and hence Subsection C of this section (referring prior to 1975 amendment specifically to institutions of higher education) was constitutionally applied to warrant their convictions. State v. Silva, 1974-NMCA-072, 86 N.M. 543, 525 P.2d 903, cert. denied, 86 N.M. 528, 525 P.2d 888 (decided under prior law).

Limitations on sales of handicrafts on state property. — Since the legislature intended that those who set the lawful mission, processes, procedures or functions of state property are to be able to avail themselves of Subsection C's provisions in furtherance of those policies and functions, the board of regents of the museum of New Mexico may properly rely on the provisions of this section to effectuate the provisions of a resolution which permits only Indians to sell handicrafts under the portals of the governor's palace. Livingston v. Ewing, 1982-NMSC-110, 98 N.M. 685, 652 P.2d 235.

Law reviews. — For annual survey of New Mexico law relating to administrative law, see 12 N.M.L. Rev. 1 (1982).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Participation of student in demonstration on or near campus as warranting imposition of criminal liability for breach of peace, disorderly conduct, trespass, unlawful assembly, or similar offense, 32 A.L.R.3d 551.

"Choice of evils," necessity, duress, or similar defense to state or local criminal charges based on acts of public protest, 3 A.L.R.5th 521.