Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Organized Crime Rico topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senators weigh broader RICO-style update amid concerns about scope and constitutional limits
Summary
Prosecutors and state police urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to update New Mexico’s 1980-era racketeering law to better target modern organized criminal enterprises; several senators cautioned the draft’s scope and gang definitions need tighter limits to avoid constitutional problems.
Santa Fe — The Judiciary Committee heard a bill to modernize New Mexico’s racketeering law. Proponents — including prosecutors and state-police leaders — told senators the current statute dates to 1980 and does not reflect modern organized-crime practices such as transnational smuggling, human trafficking and digital-enabled enterprises.
Supporters said the amendments would add enumerated offenses (for example, certain trafficking, money-laundering and enterprise-support crimes) and provide prosecutors an additional racketeering offense to target leaders and organizers of criminal networks. Major Emmanuel Gutierrez of the New Mexico State Police and representatives from district attorneys’ offices described criminal organizations as profit-driven enterprises whose activities can best be addressed through an updated racketeering tool.
Several senators raised drafting, constitutional and scope concerns. Senator Duhigg warned that too-broad definitions of “criminal gang” or “enterprise” can sweep in lawful associations and risk First Amendment challenges; he recommended narrowing definitions and relying on the statute’s existing “illicit enterprise” formulation. Other members urged careful calibration of sentence ranges and of which predicate offenses should count toward racketeering liability.
Proponents acknowledged the need for careful drafting and said the purpose is to add tools to pursue top-level organizers and revenue-generating networks — not to criminalize lawful associations. Committee members asked for additional work on the bill’s definitions, predicate-offense list and sentencing structure before a return to committee.
No committee vote was held.
