NMSC: Taillights Are Not Required to Be in Perfect Working Order

In a relatively short opinion, the New Mexico Supreme Court concludes that the catch-all provision in the motor vehicle code (“MVC”) cannot be used to criminalize a burnt-out bulb in a taillight that otherwise complies with the taillight-specific portions of the MVC.

In State v. Farish, a driver was pulled over because one of the lights in his taillight assembly was defective. The deputy testified that the light was “working properly” but that one of the bulbs was burnt out. The driver was convicted of DWI and of driving with defective equipment. At each level of the proceedings, the courts affirmed and the driver argued that the deputy lacked reasonable suspicion to pull him over because he had violated no law.

The court of appeals opinion set up this appeal. A majority ruled that, although the driver had not violated the parts of the MVC specifically addressing taillights, he had violated the general statute requiring his vehicle’s equipment to be in “good working order.” Judge Garcia dissented, observing that the specific statute should control over the general one.

The defendant wisely framed his petition for certiorari as follows: can a person violate the “good working order” statute by having taillights that satisfy the taillight-specific statutes?

The Court took certiorari and held that a person could not. First, the Court construed “good working order” to mean “functioning for its intended use.” Accordingly, “good working order” does not require equipment to function one hundred percent perfectly if it is suitable or functioning for its intended use. So, as a preliminary matter, the court of appeals majority was mistaken to the extent that it could be read to require equipment to be working perfectly.

Second, the Court concluded that the specific statutes governing taillights should take precedence over the general “good working order” statute. This followed in part from the statutory rules of construction. But it also followed from the fact that the general statute incorporated the specific statutes by reference. The general statute was merely a “catch all” statute that could be invoked in situations where there was not a more specific section of the MVC.

This opinion should remove one basis for police to find reasonable suspicion to pull over drivers based on the MVC. And it will no doubt help some New Mexicans avoid fines for partially working taillights. But the MVC will continue to provide vast opportunities for police to pull over drivers, so in the long run the decision probably will not have a significant impact in the state.

Looking for a New Mexico appellate attorney? Contact us or give me a call at (505) 273-9379.