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) lawful freedom of movement within the building or facility or the land on which it is situated;
(2) lawful use of the building or facility or the land on which it is situated; or
(3) the right of lawful ingress and egress to the building or facility or the land on which it is situated.
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.
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.
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.
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.
F. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
HISTORY:
1953 40A-20-10, enacted by Laws 1970, ch. 86, § 2; 1975, ch. 52, § 2; 1981, ch. 32, § 1.
Notes to Decisions
Administrative rules, regulations.
Constitutionality.
Defendants’ convictions under former 40A-20-10, 1953 Comp., were upheld because they added coercive conduct to their protected speech and their constitutional protection ended. State v. Silva, 1974-NMCA-072, 86 N.M. 543, 525 P.2d 903, 1974 N.M. App. LEXIS 689 (N.M. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 86 N.M. 528, 525 P.2d 888, 1974 N.M. LEXIS 1439 (N.M. 1974).
Administrative rules, regulations.
30-20-13 NMSA 1978 and 18-3-3 NMSA 1978 deal with the operation of state properties, and therefore are in pari materia and must be construed together. Livingston v. Ewing, 1982-NMSC-110, 98 N.M. 685, 652 P.2d 235, 1982 N.M. LEXIS 2912 (N.M. 1982).
Defendant’s conviction for criminal trespass in violation of 30-20-13 NMSA 1978 was reversed where he was convicted after he refused to leave the portal area at a museum where he worked as a vendor after violating a museum policy because failure to follow the State Rules Act caused the museum policy to be invalid and unenforceable under the terms of 14-4-5 NMSA 1978. State v. Joyce, 1980-NMCA-086, 94 N.M. 618, 614 P.2d 30, 1980 N.M. App. LEXIS 911 (N.M. Ct. App. 1980).
Lawful access.
State delegated control of access to its facilities was not in violation of New Mexico law requiring that the public be given free access to any facility owned or operated by any branch of government because this section qualified the right to access by requiring that the access be lawful, and allowed limits to access not consistent with the lawful mission of an agency, and there was no constitutional right to be allowed to engage in a full range of expressive activities, including leafletting, in every facility controlled by government. Southwest Community Resources, Inc. v. Simon Prop. Group, L.P., 108 F. Supp. 2d 1239, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14583 (D.N.M. 2000).
Search and seizure.
Police officer had qualified immunity with regard to an unlawful-arrest claim arising from the arrest of a middle school student because the officer could have reasonably believed that he had probable cause to arrest the student for interfering with the educational process based on the student's fake burping and other horseplay, which stopped the flow of student educational activities. A.M. ex rel. F.M. v. Holmes, 830 F.3d 1123, 95 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 5, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13490 (10th Cir. N.M. 2016).