Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance

committees of the NM Legislature. The LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports

if they are used for other purposes.

Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are a vailable on the NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us).

Adobe PDF versions include all attachments, whereas HTML versions may not. Previously issued FIRs and

attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

SPONSOR Rehm

ORIGINAL DATE

LAST UPDATED

2/21/06

2/24/06 HJM 82

SHORT TITLE Consumption Of Illegal Drugs As Possession

SB

ANALYST Peery

APPROPRIATION (dollars in thousands)

Appropriation

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY06

FY07

NA

NA

NA

NA

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Response Received From

Public Defender Department (PDD)

No Responses Received From

Administrative Offices of the Courts (AOC)

Administrative Office of the DAs (AODA)

New Mexico Sentencing Commission (NMSC)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

House Joint Memorial 82 calls for the New Mexico Sentencing Commission study means of

amending New Mexico statutes to make the results of blood or other tests indicating a detectable

amount of an illegal drug in a suspect’s system as proof of possession of an illegal drug. The

joint memorial calls for the New Mexico Sentencing Commission to explore and report on the

statute defining possession of a drug to include ingestion of the illegal drug. Also, the joint me-

morial calls for the executive director of the New Mexico Sentencing Commission or designee to

report to the interim Courts, Corrections and Justice Committee by October 2006 on ways to

amend the Criminal Code to resolve the problem of proving possession of an illegal drug through

blood or other tests.

House Joint Memorial 82 – Page

2

SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

PDD states the memorial begins with an erroneous premise that persons who drive under the in-

fluence of drugs are not punishable. PDD states the DWI laws of this state, Section 66-8-102

NMSA 1978, already punishes people who drive under the influence of any substance that im-

pairs their ability to operate a motor vehicle. PDD reports the existing laws are not limited to

driving under the influence of alcohol.

PDD states the memorial will discourage people who have drug problems from seeking help

such as medical care, when they know they can be prosecuted for “possessing” drugs in their

blood or urine. It will have its greatest impact on the low-income citizens of the state who rely

on hospital emergency rooms for medical care.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

PDD states the changing of the criminal code to punish consumption as possession will greatly

increase the number of felony prosecutions that are brought and overtax an already overloaded

system with status crimes, punishing people who are addicted to drugs as criminals.

TECHNICAL ISSUES

PDD reports the memorial presents a double jeopardy problem as well. PDD reports if a person

uses drugs but also has drugs for future use, can s/he be prosecuted for both “possessions”. PDD

states any convictions for both will be challenged and assuming the substances are the same, the

court will most likely have to reverse one conviction.

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

PDD reports people who are currently on probation or parole for some other offense are prohib-

ited from using any controlled substances and can have their probation or parole revoked for us-

ing drugs. PDD states drug court or other forms of treatment are far more effective and cheaper

options than another felony conviction and incarceration.

RLP/mt