The House Judiciary Committee heard extended testimony and technical questions on House Bill 153, a proposed update to New Mexico’s press‑shield statute that would expand legal protections for journalists and define contemporary forms of media. Committee members did not vote on the measure and asked sponsors and staff to circulate a consolidated draft before further action.

The bill’s sponsor described the measure as an update to a 1973 law that predates the internet and modern communications. Attorney and expert witness Kip Purcell told the committee the proposal is largely modeled on a recent federal template and would expand the statute’s definitions to include digital communication, service providers and electronic stores of information.

Why it matters: Supporters said modern press‑shield language would protect reporters, citizen journalists and digital publishers from administrative subpoenas that would otherwise force disclosure without clear standards; opponents and several committee members flagged concerns that the bill must avoid impeding lawful criminal search warrants or judicial subpoenas.

What the bill would do

- Modernize definitions: The draft would update who qualifies as a covered journalist and what counts as a medium, adding Internet, email, cell phone and text communications to the statute’s scope.

- Administrative subpoenas vs. judicial subpoenas: Counsel and witnesses emphasized the bill is intended to govern subpoenas issued by executive and legislative agencies; New Mexico’s Supreme Court has ruled statutes may not prescribe standards for judicial subpoenas. The sponsor and counsel said the bill excludes judicial subpoenas for that constitutional reason.

- Service providers and stored data: The draft contemplates standards for subpoenas to electronic service providers that store journalists’ materials, and proposes procedural protections and burdens of proof for courts reviewing administrative‑subpoena enforcement.

Questions raised in committee

Committee members asked a series of operational questions and flagged potential conflicts with criminal‑procedure tools such as search warrants. Representative Hall asked whether the bill would cover exigent law‑enforcement requests; Purcell said federal subpoenas and criminal warrants issued by courts fall outside the bill’s state‑statute scope and that the bill addresses state administrative and legislative subpoenas. Other members pressed whether the bill’s proposed standards could unintentionally impede criminal investigations when law enforcement seeks stored data or evidence.

Committee process and next steps

Members and staff discussed circulating a combined draft (referred to in the hearing as a 0.3 sub) that merges committee sublanguage and later amendments. Sponsors and counsel told the committee that versions 0.1 and 0.2 exist and that a consolidated 0.3 had been circulated; members asked for the final consolidated text at least 24 hours before a subsequent hearing so analysts and members could review the changes.

Ending

The committee did not take a vote on HB 153. Committee staff and sponsors will circulate a consolidated draft for review and the committee scheduled further consideration once members have time to examine the 0.3 version and address concerns on criminal‑procedure interactions and administrative enforcement.