Amber Fayerberg on the Front Lines of Patient Privacy at the New Mexico Supreme Court

Beyond the Charges: State v. Trevizo and the Future of Patient Rights in New Mexico

On September 4, 2024, the New Mexico Supreme Court heard oral argument in State v. Trevizo, a case with implications far beyond one defendant. At issue is whether police officers may enter a patient’s hospital room, hear statements made for medical care, and later use those statements in a criminal prosecution—all without Miranda warnings or meaningful consent.

Founding Partner of Fayerberg Dodd, LLC, Amber Fayerberg, argued on behalf of the defendant that the State’s position would blur the line between medical care and law enforcement so completely that it would chill patient disclosures, discourage people from seeking treatment, and undermine public trust in the healthcare system, all while compromising a person's right against self-incrimination under Miranda v. Arizona.

Amber Fayerberg arguing before the New Mexico Supreme Court

What Happened in the Case

The case began when a high school senior sought emergency medical care. Before entering her room, police had already spoken with hospital staff about what they suspected had happened. Together, officers and medical personnel confronted the patient while she was still receiving treatment.

Fayerberg argued that this coordination turned a place of care into a place of investigation—where the patient’s medical needs and constitutional rights were pushed aside in the rush to gather evidence.

Questions from the Justices

The justices pressed the State on why police were in the room at all. Justice Vigil asked pointedly whether there was any medical reason for officers to be present during the conversation with the patient. The State acknowledged that - no- the only reason for their presence was to conduct an investigation.

Justice Bacon raised concerns that the State’s position could transform narrow mandatory reporting laws into a license for unlimited police access to hospital settings, eroding both patient confidentiality and constitutional protections.

Several justices questioned whether the State’s own concession—that there was “no medical purpose” for the officers’ presence—effectively showed that medical staff had crossed the line from caregivers into investigators.

Broader Stakes for Patients and Providers

The case has drawn national attention, with amicus briefs filed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the  ACLU of New Mexico, the National Police Accountability Project, and Police in Healthcare Expert Professor Ji Seon Song

.

ACOG warned that criminalizing pregnancy outcomes—especially when medical staff act as de facto law enforcement—“destroys the clinician-patient relationship” and “worsens maternal health outcomes.” Other amici cautioned that if patients fear their words will be shared with police, they may delay or avoid seeking care altogether.

As noted by the Albuquerque Journal, the breach of Ms. Trevizo's constitutional and privacy rights in this case have not only caused her attorneys to move for a change of venue, but has also opened her most private moment to "the internet and social media, with countless content creators and consumers picking apart and scrutinizing Ms. Trevizo’s words, actions and reactions in the most ruthless of terms."

A Crossroads for Reproductive Justice

Fayerberg urged the Court to recognize that New Mexico’s reputation as a reproductive rights haven means little if patients in medical crisis cannot trust that what they say for medical purposes will remain confidential. The case, she argued, is not about whether hospitals can notify police of suspected crimes—they can, and often must. It is about what happens after that initial report: whether doctors continue serving as caregivers or become investigators working hand-in-hand with law enforcement.

Oral Argument and What Comes Next

You can watch the New Mexico Supreme Court’s oral argument in State v. Trevizo here. A decision is expected in the coming months.

Regardless of the outcome, the case has already sparked urgent dialogue about privacy, power, and the constitutional rights that must not be suspended in moments of medical need.