NM Supreme Court clarifies 911 liability in case involving Doña Ana County
EL PASO, Texas (KTSM) — The New Mexico Supreme Court clarified the legal protections that state law provides to 911 dispatchers and the government agencies that employ them from being sued for damages for personal injuries or deaths allegedly caused by their response to a call for help.
The state Supreme Court issued the ruling on Monday, April 21, in a case involving a 16-year-old who suffered heatstroke while hiking in the Organ Mountains and died in 2020.
The court unanimously concluded that the state Enhanced Medical Services Act (EMSA) governed the liability issue and that 911 dispatchers were immune from civil liability except for damages caused by negligence, according to a news release sent out by the Office of the state Supreme Court.
The family sued the Mesilla Valley Regional Dispatch Authority, several of its dispatchers, the Doña Ana County Board of County Commissioners, the New Mexico Department of Public Safety and the city of Las Cruces.
The lawsuit alleged that the teenager's death was caused by unreasonable delays and missteps in the emergency response, including an initial referral of the incident to a fire prevention specialist, a mischaracterization of it as a search-and-rescue situation and 'minor medical' event, and two ambulances being dispatched and then cancelled.
Another state law – the Enhanced 911 Act – 'has no relevance' in determining the liability of dispatchers for allegedly mishandling emergency medical calls, the court wrote in an opinion by Justice Michael E. Vigil.
The court issued its opinion in response to a federal court's request about the liability of 911 dispatchers under state law. The federal court posed the question in helping it resolve the family's lawsuit.
The New Mexico Supreme Court analyzed two state laws to determine the scope of immunity provided to 911 dispatchers.
It is the federal court's responsibility to apply the law to the facts of the family's wrongful death claims, the state Supreme Court said in its news release.
The governmental defendants in the case argued that the Enhanced 911 Act applied to dispatchers and provided immunity for dispatchers and their employers from damage claims other than those based on 'intentional acts.'
They pointed to a section of the law that granted such immunity to governmental agencies, employees, equipment suppliers and certain others for damages 'from installing, maintaining or providing enhanced 911 systems or transmitting 911 calls,' according to the news release.
The defendants contended that the section included emergency 911 medical dispatchers.
The court rejected the defendants' arguments that the statutory reference to 'transmitting 911 calls' made dispatchers subject to the immunity under the Enhanced 911 Act, which was enacted six years after the EMSA became law.
'Succinctly stated, important changes in statutory law are not generally made through inconspicuous means. Applying that principle here, we cannot conclude that the Legislature would announce a new rule more broadly immunizing 911 dispatchers from liability except for intentional acts in the space of one phrase in a statute primarily addressing enhanced 911 infrastructure and funding that makes only isolated and generalized references to 911 dispatchers or their equivalents,' the court wrote.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Supreme Court to hear case on IQ tests and death penalty next term
The Supreme Court will hear a case next term centered on the role of multiple IQ scores in determining an Alabama murderer's eligibility for the death penalty, according to a list issued by the court late Friday. In Hamm v. Smith, the state of Alabama is arguing that Joseph Smith — who was sentenced to death for a murder in 1997 — should be executed because he has not proved that his IQ is 70 or below, as required by state law. However, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama vacated Smith's death sentence after ruling he is intellectually disabled because the score on one of his IQ tests could fall below 70 when accounting for margin of error. Smith had obtained five IQ scores that ranged from 72 to 78. The Supreme Court justices agreed to hear Hamm v. Smith to determine a limited question: 'Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim,' referring to the 2002 landmark decision Atkins v. Virginia, which ruled that executing those with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. In November, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision to remand the case for further consideration. In it, the justices said that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit — which had affirmed the lower court's decision to vacate Smith's death sentence — had been unclear in why it had issued that decision. In February, the state of Alabama again asked the Supreme Court to intervene, saying the Eleventh Circuit 'watered down the most objective prong of the test, overrode Alabama's definition of intellectual disability, and shattered Atkins's promise to leave meaningful discretion to the States.' 'This case was not close: Smith scored 75, 74, 72, 78, and 74 on five full-scale IQ tests. There is no way to conclude from these five numbers that Smith's true IQ is likely to be 70 or below,' the state of Alabama argued, also adding that evaluating multiple IQ scores is 'complicated' and that the Supreme Court has not specified how to do it. 'Smith could take hundreds of IQ tests, score 75 on all of them, yet his IQ still 'could be' 70, according to the panel [the Eleventh Circuit], because every test could have erred by 5 points. The panel failed to appreciate that multiple tests together can provide a more accurate estimate than each test alone,' the state argued. The Supreme Court's next term is scheduled to begin in October. The list of new cases was not expected until Monday morning, but email notifications about the list were inadvertently sent Friday evening because of a technical glitch, so the court chose to release the list of cases earlier than scheduled. In a statement that accompanied the early release, court spokeswoman Patricia McCabe said the notifications were sent prematurely because of an 'apparent software malfunction.' Justin Jouvenal contributed to this report.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Right-wing protester shattered Supreme Court window with air gun, police say
Police, Shin Bet, and court security are investigating to identify the suspects, the police stated. Security footage from the Supreme Court revealed that around 9:00 p.m. on Friday, during a protest outside the building, one of the court's large panoramic windows was damaged, Israel Police announced on Saturday. Security forces believe the window was shattered by a non-lethal weapon, such as an air gun or slingshot, Israel police confirmed. Police, Shin Bet, and court security are investigating to identify the suspects, the police stated. The damage was discovered following a large and heated right-wing demonstration held outside the court on Friday, which drew an estimated 10,000 participants. Protesters voiced strong criticism of the judicial system and the government's legal advisor. Following the incident, Opposition Leader Yair Lapid stated, "The government organized the demonstration during which the Supreme Court window was smashed. This incident is a direct result of their incitement. I warned over a month ago—if the prime minister doesn't stop this, it will end in political murder." Democrats Party Chairman Yair Golan added that a justice minister "who does not recognize the authority of the Supreme Court President, and a prime minister under criminal indictment who attacks the rule of law," have paved the way for violence against the judicial system. "The shooting at the Supreme Court is a grave and unprecedented act, driven by a campaign of incitement. The instigators sit in the government. The responsibility lies with them. The duty to fix it lies with us."
USA Today
4 hours ago
- USA Today
Utah can execute convicted murderer who has dementia, judge rules
Utah can execute convicted murderer who has dementia, judge rules Show Caption Hide Caption Death penalty: Which states still use capital punishment The death penalty has been used in the U.S. since 1608. But various Supreme Court rulings have limited its use. Here's why it's controversial. Just the FAQs, USA TODAY A Utah judge on June 6 ruled a 67-year-old convicted murderer diagnosed with dementia on death row is competent enough to be executed. A trial court sentenced Ralph Leroy Menzies to death in 1988 for kidnapping, robbing and murdering 26-year-old Maurine Hunsaker, a married mother with three children. Since then, Menzies has been on death row. Menzies had chosen firing squad as his method of execution, according a ruling published by KUTV. While awaiting execution, he developed vascular dementia, and his lawyers had argued he was too incompetent to be executed. In a 22-page ruling, State Judge Matthew Bates said Menzies exhibited cognitive decline. But Bates said Menzies hasn't shown that his 'understanding of his specific crime and punishment fluctuated or declined in a way to offend the Eighth Amendment' of the Constitution, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment. Discover WITNESS: Access our exclusive collection of true crime stories, podcasts, videos and more Instead, Bates said in his ruling, 'Menzies consistently and rationally understands the reasons for his death sentence.' His lawyers tried to appeal his death sentence several times. Bates said Menzies' right to appeal the ruling was exhausted in late 2023, but news outlets report Menzies' legal team plans to appeal to the state Supreme Court. 'Ralph Menzies is a severely brain-damaged, wheelchair-bound, 67-year-old man with dementia and significant memory problems,' Lindsey Layer, a lawyer for Menzies, said in a statement published by multiple news outlets. 'It is deeply troubling that Utah plans to remove Mr. Menzies from his wheelchair and oxygen tank to strap him into an execution chair and shoot him to death.' USA TODAY has contacted Layer for comment. In an emailed statement, Madison McMicken, a spokesperson for the Utah Attorney General's office, said prosecutors were committed to seeking justice for Hunsaker. On Feb. 23, 1986, Menzies murdered Hunsaker while she was working as a cashier at a gas station in Salt Lake County, according to court records. He abducted her and stabbed her to death, leaving her body in the woods outside of Salt Lake City. Menzies had several past convictions for aggravated robberies before killing Hunsaker, who left behind three children, including a 6-month-old baby. Capital punishment: Supreme Court to consider use of multiple IQ tests in determining death penalty One of her children, Matt Hunsaker, was 10 when his mother was killed. He told KSLTV, a Salt Lake City TV station, that their family was one step closer to justice with the June 6 ruling. Menzies would be the sixth person executed by firing squad in the United States since 1976, according to the nonprofit Death Penalty Information Center. In 2019, the United States Supreme Court stopped the execution of an Alabama man convicted of fatally shooting a police officer because he had vascular dementia. Vernon Madison couldn't remember his crime or his punishment, justices ruled. In 2025, South Carolina executed two people by firing squad, the first such executions since 2010, when Utah last executed a person. The same day as Menzies' June 6 ruling, the Supreme Court said it would review using multiple intelligence tests to determine the death penalty against a person. Eduardo Cuevas is based in New York City. Reach him by email at emcuevas1@ or on Signal at emcuevas.01.
