Are New Mexico Livestock Board inspectors required to wear body cameras under state law?
Plain-English summary
New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez concluded that the New Mexico Livestock Board is not a "law enforcement agency" under NMSA 1978, § 29-1-18, the state's body-worn camera statute. As a result, livestock inspectors who carry out the Board's investigative and enforcement work are not required to wear body cameras under that section.
The reasoning is narrow and textual. Section 29-1-18(D)(2) gives a closed definition of "law enforcement agency" that lists exactly four entities: a municipal police department, a county sheriff's office, the New Mexico State Police, and the Department of Public Safety. The Livestock Board is not among them. Because the Legislature drew that list specifically, the AG declined to read the Board into it.
The opinion stops there. It does not address whether the Board has any separate obligation, under other statutes, regulations, or local policy, to record encounters with the public. The AG flagged this expressly: "this determination does not affect any separate legal obligations that may exist regarding the agency's use of recording devices."
What this means for you
If you are a New Mexico livestock inspector
You are not required by § 29-1-18 to wear a body camera while performing your duties. That said, the Livestock Board may adopt its own recording policy, and any internal policy or supervisor directive still applies to you. If you are unsure, ask the Board for the current operational guidance.
If you run or oversee the Livestock Board
The Board is not subject to the equipment, retention, or release rules in § 29-1-18. If the Board chooses to deploy body cameras voluntarily, you have flexibility on retention periods, redaction protocols, and public-records release timing, because the statutory framework that governs the four named agencies does not lock you in. Evaluate that policy choice on its own merits, including liability exposure and public-trust considerations, rather than treating § 29-1-18 as a floor.
If you are a rancher, livestock owner, or member of the public who interacted with a livestock inspector
You should not assume the encounter was recorded. Unlike a state trooper or sheriff's deputy, an inspector is not under a statutory duty to record. If you want to challenge an inspector's account of what happened, consider any other evidence (witnesses, your own recording where lawful, or paper records) rather than expecting body-cam footage to exist.
If you are a criminal defense attorney or civil rights litigator
When evaluating discovery in a livestock-related investigation, do not assume body-cam footage exists or that its absence is a § 29-1-18 violation. The statute does not reach the Board. If recordings would have been valuable, your argument has to come from somewhere else, for example, a Brady duty under separate authority, an internal Board policy, or a cooperating agency that was covered (a sheriff's deputy, a state trooper) who participated in the same event.
If you sit on a legislative committee that may revisit § 29-1-18
The opinion makes the policy choice plain. The current statute is opt-in by enumeration. Other agencies with peace-officer functions, including livestock inspectors, parks officers, and similar specialized enforcement bodies, fall outside the mandate by default. If the Legislature wants those agencies covered, the cleanest fix is to expand the § 29-1-18(D)(2) definition rather than rely on inference.
Common questions
Q: Do livestock inspectors have arrest powers?
A: The opinion notes that the Board has "certain law enforcement functions" and that inspectors "routinely respond to calls and conduct investigations of livestock-related crimes." That is consistent with the broader Livestock Code, which gives inspectors authority over livestock theft, brand inspection, and related offenses. The opinion does not address the precise scope of those powers; it only addresses the body-camera question.
Q: If a livestock inspector and a sheriff's deputy show up to the same call, does anyone have to record?
A: The deputy almost certainly does, because a county sheriff's office is on the § 29-1-18(D)(2) list and routinely-public-facing peace officers in covered agencies must wear body cameras. The inspector is not required to. In practice, the deputy's footage would likely capture much of the encounter.
Q: Can the Livestock Board still adopt its own body-camera policy?
A: Yes. Nothing in this opinion stops the Board from adopting recording requirements as a matter of internal policy or rulemaking. The opinion only says § 29-1-18 does not impose those requirements on the Board.
Q: Does this mean the Livestock Board is exempt from all police-accountability laws?
A: No. The opinion is narrow. It addresses one statute, the body-worn camera mandate. Other accountability frameworks (the Tort Claims Act, civil rights actions under federal law, public records obligations under IPRA, internal disciplinary procedures) apply on their own terms.
Q: Why did the AG read the statute so narrowly?
A: Because § 29-1-18(D)(2) defines "law enforcement agency" with a closed list. New Mexico courts treat statutory definitions as binding expressions of legislative intent (the opinion cites State v. Monafo, 2016-NMCA-092). When the Legislature lists exactly four agencies, courts and the AG will not silently add a fifth.
Background and statutory framework
NMSA 1978, § 29-1-18 was enacted as part of New Mexico's response to a national push for police accountability after several high-profile officer-involved incidents. The statute requires "peace officers" employed by a covered "law enforcement agency" who "routinely interact with the public" to wear body-worn cameras while on duty, with limited exceptions.
The key drafting choice is in § 29-1-18(D)(2). Rather than define "law enforcement agency" by function (any agency that employs peace officers, for example), the Legislature defined it by enumeration:
- the police department of a municipality
- the sheriff's office of a county
- the New Mexico State Police
- the Department of Public Safety
That structure produces a clean rule for the four big enforcement bodies and leaves a number of specialized state enforcement units, the Livestock Board, the Game and Fish conservation officers, parks rangers, and others, outside the statute. Whether that is sound policy is a question for the Legislature, not the AG.
The opinion applies standard New Mexico statutory-construction canons. The court starts with the plain text. When the Legislature defines a term, that definition controls. Courts and the AG do not "read into a statute language which is not there, particularly if it makes sense as written" (Burroughs v. Board of County Comm'rs, 1975-NMSC-051). Here, the closed list "makes sense as written" because the four named agencies handle the bulk of routine public encounters that the statute targets.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- NMSA 1978, § 29-1-18 (body-worn camera requirements for peace officers)
- NMSA 1978, § 29-1-18(D)(2) (definition of "law enforcement agency")
Cases:
- State ex rel. N.M. Gaming Control Bd. v. Ten Gaming Devices, 2005-NMCA-117 (statutory construction; legislative intent)
- Marbob Energy Corp. v. N.M. Oil Conservation Comm'n, 2009-NMSC-013 (plain-language canon)
- State v. Monafo, 2016-NMCA-092 (statutory definitions reflect legislative intent)
- Burroughs v. Board of County Comm'rs, 1975-NMSC-051 (courts do not read words into a statute)
Source
- Landing page: https://nmdoj.gov/publication/opinion/2024-01-opinion-body-camera-use-obligations-of-new-mexico-livestock-board-inspectors/
- Original PDF: https://nmdoj.gov/wp-content/uploads/AG_Opinion_2024-01_-Garland-_Livestock_Inspector_Body_Cameras.pdf
Original opinion text
January 19, 2024
OPINION
OF
RAÚL TORREZ
Attorney General
By: Jennifer N. Salazar, Assistant Attorney General
To: Belinda Garland, Executive Director, New Mexico Livestock Board
AG Opinion No. 2024-01
In Re: Opinion Request – Body Camera Use Obligations of New Mexico Livestock Board Inspectors
Question:
Is the Livestock Board a law enforcement agency subject to body-worn camera requirements of NMSA 1978, Section 29-1-18?
Conclusion:
No. The Livestock Board does not fall under the definition of a law enforcement agency for purposes of Section 29-1-18, and the agency is not subject to the statute's body camera requirements.
Analysis
Whether New Mexico Livestock Board inspectors (livestock inspectors) are subject to the body-worn camera use and other requirements of NMSA 1978, § 29-1-18 (2023) depends on whether the New Mexico Livestock Board (the Board) is a law enforcement agency for purposes of that statute. As explained in more detail below, and based on the applicable law and information provided, we conclude that the Board's inspectors are not subject to those body camera use requirements because the Board is not included in the statute's explicit definition of a "law enforcement agency."
Only certain law enforcement agencies are subject to body-worn camera requirements under Section 29-1-18(A). This statute provides that peace officers employed by a covered law enforcement agency and "who routinely interact with the public" are required to wear body cameras, except as otherwise provided by law. A "law enforcement agency" for purposes of this section is defined as "the police department of a municipality, the sheriff's office of a county, the New Mexico state police or the department of public safety." Section 29-1-18(D)(2). According to your letter, the New Mexico Livestock Board has certain law enforcement functions, and livestock inspectors routinely respond to calls and conduct investigations of livestock-related crimes.
The question of whether the Board is considered a "law enforcement agency" for purposes of Section 29-1-18 is a matter of statutory interpretation. The primary purpose in construing a statute is to "determine and give effect to the intent of the legislature." State ex rel. N.M. Gaming Control Bd. v. Ten Gaming Devices, 2005-NMCA-117, ¶ 6 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To discern the Legislature's intent, "we are aided by classic canons of statutory construction, and we look first to the plain language of the statute, giving the words their ordinary meaning, unless the Legislature indicates a different one was intended." Marbob Energy Corp. v. N.M. Oil Conservation Comm'n, 2009-NMSC-013, ¶ 9 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Furthermore, when the Legislature defines a term, a statute is construed according to that definition "because [statutory] definitions reflect legislative intent." State v. Monafo, 2016-NMCA-092, ¶ 27 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The New Mexico Legislature included a specific definition of "law enforcement agency" for purposes of construing the requirements of Section 29-1-18. Specifically, the Legislature narrowed the definition to include only "the police department of a municipality, the sheriff's office of a county, the New Mexico state police or the department of public safety[.]" Section 29-1-18(D)(2). The Legislature did not include the Board in this definition and, consistent with the rules of statutory construction described above, we should "not read into a statute . . . language which is not there, particularly if it makes sense as written." Burroughs v. Board of County Comm'rs, 1975-NMSC-051, ¶ 14. The Board's absence from the definition of "law enforcement agency" evinces the legislative intent to limit the statute's applicability to only certain law enforcement agencies, which would exclude the Board and its inspectors from the requirements of Section 29-1-18.
Conclusion
Our determination that the Livestock Board is not a law enforcement agency subject to body-worn camera requirements of Section 29-1-18 is based on the plain language of the statute. While the Board and its inspectors are not subject to this specific state law, this determination does not affect any separate legal obligations that may exist regarding the agency's use of recording devices.
You have requested an opinion on this question presented to our office. The request and the opinion provided herein will be published on our website and made available to the general public. If you have any questions regarding this matter, or if our office may be of further assistance, please let us know.
Respectfully,
RAÚL TORREZ
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Jennifer N. Salazar
Assistant Attorney General