A. Disarming a peace officer consists of knowingly:
(1) removing a firearm or weapon from the person of a peace officer when the officer is acting within the scope of his duties; or
(2) depriving a peace officer of the use of a firearm or weapon when the officer is acting within the scope of his duties.
B. The provisions of Subsection A of this act shall not apply when a peace officer is engaged in criminal conduct.
C. Whoever commits disarming a peace officer is guilty of a third degree felony.
History: Laws 1997, ch. 122, § 1.
ANNOTATIONSEffective dates. — Laws 1997, ch. 122, § 2 makes the act effective July 1, 1997.
"Use of a firearm" defined. — The plain language of the statute penalizes a defendant for depriving an officer of the use of a firearm at any point during the officer's acting within the scope of his duties, rather than limiting its applicability to a deprivation that occurs only when the officer is attempting or intends an immediate use of the firearm. State v. Ortiz, 2017-NMCA-006, cert. denied.
Sufficient evidence of attempt to disarm a peace officer. — Where a law enforcement officer, in response to a report of a male subject acting suspiciously, detained and transported defendant to the police department due to his bizarre behavior, and where defendant began hitting his head against the wall and door of the holding cell requiring medical attention, and while being transported to the hospital, defendant grabbed the officer's shotgun from the front seat of the patrol vehicle with both hands, despite being handcuffed, and tried to pull the weapon from the front seat to the back seat of the patrol car, the evidence produced at trial was sufficient for the district court to conclude that defendant intentionally grabbed the shotgun intending to pull it through the partition between the front and back seat of the patrol vehicle, and that doing so would deprive the officer, who was acting within the scope of his duties, of its use. State v. Ortiz, 2017-NMCA-006, cert. denied.