The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Walters on April 18, 2011.

Investigatory Stop—Search—Consensual Encounter—Suppression of Evidence and Statements.

The Supreme Court held that the arresting officer did not subject defendant to an investigatory stop. Rather, the encounter between the officer and defendant was consensual. Defendant had parked, exited his vehicle, and raised his vehicle’s hood before the officer approached him. The officer approached defendant in a non-threatening manner to ask whether defendant needed assistance. The officer used a conversational tone of voice; did not display his weapon; did not take defendant’s identification card; and asked, but did not order, defendant to submit to a pat down and to the search of his vehicle. Accordingly, the Court held that the trial court erred when it ordered the suppression of evidence obtained during the search of defendant’s vehicle and statements given by defendant following the search. The order was reversed and the case was remanded.

Summary and full case available here.

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Brant on April 18, 2011.

Investigatory Stop—Protective Weapons Search—Fourth Amendment—Plain Feel Doctrine.

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order suppressing evidence discovered by “plain feel” during the course of a protective search for weapons. During a valid investigatory stop, a police officer became concerned for his safety after observing defendant, who was the passenger of the vehicle, leaning forward and placing an object between her seat and the passenger door. The officer patted down defendant and performed a protective search for weapons within the passenger compartment of the vehicle. The officer saw a glove between the passenger door and seat, picked it up, and immediately recognized by feel that it contained a pipe. The trial court ruled that the officer exceeded the scope of the protective search and suppressed the evidence found in the glove. The Court disagreed, holding that the officer was justified in performing a protective search of the passenger compartment of the vehicle and, based on the “plain feel” doctrine, lawfully seized the suppressed objects during the course of that protective search. The case was remanded to the trial court.

Summary and full case available here.