are enumerated in a statute or regulation. Accordingly, our cases have also considered such sources as departmental job descriptions and affidavits in determining the duties of public employees. See Weinstein v. City of Santa Fe ex rel. Santa Fe Police Dep't, 1996-NMSC-021, ¶¶ 9-10, 121 N.M. 646, 916 P.2d 1313 (considering statutes enumerating duties of municipal police officers, county sheriffs, and law enforcement officers); Anchondo v. Corr. Dep't, 1983-NMSC-051, ¶¶ 4-8, 100 N.M. 108, 666 P.2d 1255 (looking to the principal duties of the secretary of corrections and the warden of a county detention center as described by statute to conclude they were not law enforcement officers under the TCA); Baptiste v. City of Las Cruces, 1993-NMCA-017, ¶¶ 2, 4, 115 N.M. 178, 848 P.2d 1105 (<HOLDING>); Vigil, 1992-NMCA-033, ¶¶ 11-15 (considering
holding that the written job description alone was insufficient to establish that an animal control officer is a law enforcement officer under the tca holding that the secretary of corrections is not a law enforcement officer under the tca holding officer liable for deprivation of constitutional rights despite argument that officer although present was not in control of the situation holding that an alcoholic beverage control officer was a public officer within the meaning of the statute holding that although jury found officer not to have had probable cause for arrest officer was entitled to immunity because law was not clearly established as to circumstances in which officer found himself