A. Subject to the provisions of Subsection B of this section and Sections 28-2-4 and 28-2-5 NMSA 1978, in determining eligibility for employment with the state or any of its political subdivisions or for a license, permit, certificate or other authority to engage in any regulated trade, business or profession, the board or other department or agency having jurisdiction may take into consideration a conviction, but the conviction shall not operate as an automatic bar to obtaining public employment or license or other authority to practice the trade, business or profession. A board, department or agency of the state or any of its political subdivisions shall not make an inquiry regarding a conviction on an initial application for employment and shall only take into consideration a conviction after the applicant has been selected as a finalist for the position.
B. The following criminal records shall not be used, distributed or disseminated in connection with an application for any public employment, license or other authority:
(1) records of arrest not followed by a valid conviction; and
(2) misdemeanor convictions not involving moral turpitude.
History: 1953 Comp., § 41-24-3, enacted by Laws 1974, ch. 78, § 3; 2010, ch. 76, § 1.
Cross references. — For persons convicted of felonious or infamous crime ineligible for public office unless pardoned or restored to political rights, see 10-1-2 NMSA 1978.
The 2010 amendment, effective May 19, 2010, in Subsection A, after "Sections", deleted "3 and 4 of the Criminal Offender Employment Act" and added "28-2-4 and 28-2-5 NMSA 1978"; and added the last sentence.
State board of education subject to article. — The state board of education is subject to the provisions of Criminal Offender Employment Act (COEA), because it is an agency which determines eligibility for employment with the state. Bertrand v. N.M. State Bd. of Educ., 1975-NMCA-145, 88 N.M. 611, 544 P.2d 1176, cert. denied, 89 N.M. 5, 546 P.2d 70 (1976).
Testimony concerning indictment. — Because an agency has wide discretion in receiving and excluding evidence in proceedings under the Uniform Licensing Act, any error in allowing reference to an indictment against a dentist was harmless. Weiss v. N.M. Bd. of Dentistry, 1990-NMSC-077, 110 N.M. 574, 798 P.2d 175.
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.