## Facts

- Clarence “Frank” Turley was hired by a private landowner to excavate an archaeological site located on the landowner’s private property using mechanical earth-moving equipment.
- Turley and the landowner signed an agreement providing that Turley would perform excavation work on the landowner’s behalf and that the landowner would retain sole ownership of any artifacts recovered.
- New Mexico law made it unlawful for any person to excavate an archaeological site on private land with mechanical earth-moving equipment to collect or remove objects of antiquity unless the person first obtained a permit issued under the statute.
- The statute also stated that archaeological specimens collected from such excavations would be the property of the landowner.
- The statute contained an exception stating that nothing in the section required a landowner to obtain a permit for “personal excavation on his own land.”
- After Turley began excavation, New Mexico authorities charged him by criminal information with excavating an archaeological site on another person’s private property without the required permit.
- The trial court dismissed the criminal information, concluding Turley’s excavation fell within the landowner’s exception because Turley was working for the owner as an employee/agent.
- The New Mexico Court of Appeals reversed, agreeing with the State that the exception applied only when the landowner personally performed the excavation.
- Turley sought further review in the Supreme Court of New Mexico.

## Issues

1. Whether the statutory exception for a landowner’s “personal excavation on his own land” allows excavation performed by the landowner’s employee/agent without a permit, or instead requires the landowner to personally operate the equipment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the criminal information against Turley.
- The court held that Turley, acting as the landowner’s employee, was not required to obtain a permit under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 18-6-11.
- The court rejected the State’s view that the word “personal” required the landowner to physically perform the excavation or obtain a permit whenever a non-owner operator was used.

## Legal Principles

- Courts construe statutes according to their plain meaning and will not add requirements that the Legislature did not express.
- A person may do through an agent what the person may lawfully do personally, unless public policy or an agreement requires personal performance.
- When a statute grants a landowner an exception from a permit requirement for activity on the owner’s land, that exception applies when the owner authorizes an employee/agent to perform the work, unless the statute clearly disallows delegation.

## Conclusion

Because § 18-6-11 did not clearly require the landowner to personally operate mechanical equipment to use the “personal excavation” exception, ordinary agency principles applied; Turley’s authorized excavation for the landowner on the landowner’s property did not require a permit, so the criminal information was properly dismissed.


Clarence “Frank” Turley v. State of New Mexico, 633 P.2d 687 (1981)