The reading of the ruling leaves me in dismay. Not from the aspect that Mocek was ruled against, although that was somewhat disheartening; but, from some of the 'legal' aspects presented as case law that appear to me to be such clear .......izations of common sense. As well as what appears to be blatant manipulation of facts to affect the outcome that the court, in my opinion, wanted to achieve.
Among a myriad of other things, and perhaps a nitpick, but when it appears that a judge can't read a law that he quotes himself and apply it accurately, I'm not sure how much faith I can put in the remainder of his ruling. He quotes a description of the NM law on page 106 in regards to "concealing identity" - then later notes:
The AAPD officers could legally demand Mocek to produce identification, because they had reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in criminal activity. His failure to produce that identification thus gave the AAPD officers probable cause to arrest him.
Last I checked, and I'm sure the lawyer types would agree, there can be a world of difference in 'identifying' oneself and being required to produce 'identification'. Nitpick maybe, but, the courts should not be attempting to construe the two as equivalent. To me, it was additional confirmation of bias among the myriad of other hoops it appeared the judge was jumping through to make his case in the ruling.