2021 New Mexico Statutes
Article 22 - Interference with Law Enforcement
Section 30-22-3 - Concealing identity.

Concealing identity consists of concealing one's true name or identity, or disguising oneself with intent to obstruct the due execution of the law or with intent to intimidate, hinder or interrupt any public officer or any other person in a legal performance of his duty or the exercise of his rights under the laws of the United States or of this state.
Whoever commits concealing identity is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-22-3, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, § 22-3.
Constitutionality. — This section is not unconstitutionally vague on the basis that it does not provide a time limit within which one must disclose one's identity. State v. Dawson, 1999-NMCA-072, 127 N.M. 472, 983 P.2d 421.
Time for response to request for identification. — This section requires a person to furnish identifying information immediately upon request or, if the person has reasonable concerns about the validity of the request, so soon thereafter as not to cause substantial inconvenience or expense to law enforcement officers. State v. Dawson, 1999-NMCA-072, 127 N.M. 472, 983 P.2d 421.
Concealing information other than true name. — Identity is not limited to name alone; thus, in the context of a valid traffic stop, a failure to provide the information contained in a driver's license (address, date of birth and social security number) falls within the reach of this section regardless of whether a driver also provides his or her true name. State v. Andrews, 1997-NMCA-017, 123 N.M. 95, 934 P.2d 289.
Information supplied during traffic stop. — This section is sufficiently definite, in the context of a valid traffic stop, so that ordinary drivers would understand that they had to provide more than just a name, and the authority to request such identification does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory law enforcement. State v. Andrews, 1997-NMCA-017, 123 N.M. 95, 934 P.2d 289.
Use of section as defense to tort. — The defendant was entitled to qualified immunity since the facts and circumstances within his knowledge would have led a reasonable officer to conclude that the plaintiff concealed his identity in violation of this section. Albright v. Rodriquez, 51 F.3d 1531 (10th Cir. 1995).
Evidence sufficient for conviction. — Since the overwhelming evidence was that the defendant responded with profanity and recalcitrance to multiple requests that he produce some identification and a person genuinely puzzled by those requests most likely would have queried the officers rather than responding belligerently, the record contains sufficient evidence for the district court to reasonably conclude the defendant violated both 30-20-1 NMSA 1978 and this section. United States v. Stenzel, 49 F.3d 658 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 840, 116 S. Ct. 123, 133 L. Ed. 2d 73 (1995).
Sufficient evidence of concealing identity. — Where a law enforcement officer, in response to a report of a male subject acting suspiciously, observed defendant jumping back and forth over the fence of a business establishment in the early hours of the morning, and where defendant declined to give the officer his name, there was sufficient evidence to find that the officer was acting in the legal performance of her duty as a police officer in stopping defendant, and that defendant concealed his name or identity with the intent to obstruct, hinder or delay the officer's investigation. State v. Ortiz, 2017-NMCA-006, cert. denied.
"Legal performance of duty" construed. — This section mandates that the officer asking for identity be acting in the "legal performance of his duty," which requires that the state prove that the officer had reasonable suspicion to detain and question a defendant. State v. Aguilar, 2021-NMCA-018, cert. denied.
The evidence of reasonable suspicion was insufficient to support defendant's concealing identity conviction. — Where defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance and concealing identity after a restaurant manager called police to report that a group of people, which included defendant, was engaged in possible drug activity at the restaurant, and where defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence seized from him following his arrest, claiming that reasonable suspicion of the commission of a crime is a required element of concealing identity, and that the state failed to introduce sufficient evidence at trial to prove that the arresting officer had reasonable suspicion, defendant's conviction for concealing identity was not supported by substantial evidence, because a detention for questioning about identity is not within a "legal performance of the officer's duty" unless that officer has reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is being committed, and in this case, the only evidence the officer offered at trial was that he was dispatched to the restaurant because the restaurant's manager suspected that a group of people, which included defendant, were using drugs inside the restroom. This evidence is insufficient to establish that the officer had a reasonable suspicion, based on the facts and circumstances known to him, that defendant had criminally trespassed on the restaurant premises or that defendant was engaged in drug activity. State v. Aguilar, 2021-NMCA-018, cert. denied.
Qualified immunity of arresting officer. — In a civil rights action against a police officer who arrested the plaintiff for failing to provide proper identification during a traffic stop, the officer did not violate the plaintiff's clearly established rights and was entitled to qualified immunity. Nagol v. New Mexico, 923 F. Supp. 190 (D.N.M. 1996).
Constitutional challenge not ripe. — Since the plaintiff was arrested but not convicted for a violation of this section and failed to show a credible threat that he might be arrested under this section in the future, he could not challenge the validity of the section in federal court. Nagol v. New Mexico, 923 F. Supp. 190 (D.N.M. 1996).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — What amounts to disguise, 1 A.L.R. 642.
Criminal liability for false personation during stop for traffic infraction, 26 A.L.R.5th 378.