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

The AG says § 29-1-18 does not impose its body-camera requirement on Livestock Board inspectors. The opinion expressly leaves open whether a separate legal obligation concerning recording devices applies. Check current Board guidance for your duties.

If you run or oversee the Livestock Board

The opinion concludes that the Board is outside § 29-1-18's body-camera requirements because the statute's definition of "law enforcement agency" does not include it. The AG did not analyze retention, redaction, release timing or the Board's authority to adopt a separate recording policy. Review those questions under their own applicable law.

If you are a rancher, livestock owner, or member of the public who interacted with a livestock inspector

The opinion gives no basis to assume § 29-1-18 required the inspector to wear a body camera. It does not say whether a particular encounter was recorded or what other records may exist.

If you are a criminal defense attorney or civil rights litigator

The absence of a Livestock Board inspector's body-camera footage, by itself, is not a violation of § 29-1-18 under this opinion. The AG did not address other agencies' conduct, discovery duties or separate recording obligations.

If you sit on a legislative committee that may revisit § 29-1-18

The opinion applies the statute's explicit four-agency definition. It does not assess any proposed amendment or determine the status of specialized agencies other than the Livestock Board.

Common questions

Q: Do livestock inspectors have arrest powers?
A: The opinion reports that the Board has "certain law enforcement functions" and inspectors "routinely respond to calls and conduct investigations of livestock-related crimes." It does not decide their arrest powers.

Q: If a livestock inspector and a sheriff's deputy show up to the same call, does anyone have to record?
A: The statute names county sheriff's offices among covered agencies and applies to their peace officers who routinely interact with the public, subject to legal exceptions. The opinion decides only that § 29-1-18 does not cover the Livestock Board inspector; it does not decide whether a deputy at a particular call recorded it.

Q: Can the Livestock Board still adopt its own body-camera policy?
A: The opinion does not address the Board's authority to adopt a policy. It says only that § 29-1-18 does not impose its body-camera requirements on the Board and that other legal obligations may exist.

Q: Does this mean the Livestock Board is exempt from all police-accountability laws?
A: The opinion addresses only § 29-1-18. It expressly says its conclusion does not affect any separate legal obligations concerning recording devices.

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 requires peace officers employed by a covered law enforcement agency who "routinely interact with the public" to wear body cameras, except as otherwise provided by law.

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

The AG applied that definition to the Livestock Board and found it outside the statute. The opinion does not analyze other specialized agencies.

The opinion starts with the statute's definition and cites Burroughs v. Board of County Comm'rs, 1975-NMSC-051, for the rule against reading absent words into a statute when it makes sense as written. The AG did not offer a reason for the Legislature's choice of those four agencies.

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