November 23, 2017

Colorado Supreme Court: Defendant Not In Custody at Time of Interview so Suppression Order Reversed

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Sampson on Monday, October 30, 2017.

Miranda Warnings.

In this interlocutory appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court concluded that a conversation between defendant and a law enforcement officer that took place in a hospital did not constitute custody for Miranda purposes. Under the totality of the circumstances, the court concluded that a reasonable person in defendant’s position would not have believed that his freedom of action had been curtailed to a degree associated with a formal arrest. Assuming without deciding that giving Miranda warnings can be considered in determining whether a suspect is in custody, the court concluded that defendant was not in custody during any part of his conversation with the law enforcement officer. Therefore, the court reversed the trial court’s suppression order.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Findings of Inventory Search of Vehicle Need Not Be Suppressed Because Search Was Lawful

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Camarigg on Thursday, September 7, 2017.

Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol—Impound—Vehicle—Inventory Search—Warrant—Prosecutorial Misconduct—Burden of Proof—Beyond a Reasonable Doubt—Evidence—Intent to Manufacture Methamphetamine.

After defendant was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), officers impounded his vehicle because it was parked in front of a gas pump at a gas station. The officers conducted an inventory search of the vehicle and discovered a sealed box containing items commonly used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. Based on those items, they obtained a warrant to search the vehicle and found additional items used to manufacture methamphetamine. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the search and warrant. The trial court denied the motion. A jury convicted defendant of DUI, careless driving, and possession of chemicals, supplies, or equipment with intent to manufacture methamphetamine.

On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court should have excluded evidence discovered in the inventory search of his vehicle and under the subsequently issued warrant. A vehicle is lawfully taken into custody if the seizure is authorized by law and department regulations and is reasonable. Inventory searches are an exception to the warrant requirement and are reasonable if (1) the vehicle was lawfully taken into custody; (2) the search was conducted according to “an established, standardized policy”; and (3) there is no showing that police acted in bad faith or for the sole purpose of investigation. Here, the decision to impound the vehicle was reasonable, and the inventory search was conducted according to standard policy and was constitutional. Because the inventory search was constitutional, evidence obtained under the subsequently issued warrant could not have been tainted.

Defendant next argued that the prosecutor improperly quantified the concept of reasonable doubt and lowered the burden of proof by using a puzzle analogy during closing argument. The prosecutor used a puzzle analogy to convey the difference between proof beyond a reasonable doubt and proof beyond all doubt, which other courts have found permissible. Further, the prosecutor used the analogy to rebut the defense argument that evidence of defendant’s guilt was speculative. The Court of Appeals concluded there was no reasonable possibility that the prosecutor’s analogy contributed to defendant’s conviction. Additionally, the jury was properly instructed on the reasonable doubt standard. Therefore, any impropriety in the prosecutor’s analogy was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Lastly, defendant contended there was insufficient evidence that he intended to manufacture methamphetamine. There was sufficient circumstantial evidence from which a rational jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant intended to manufacture methamphetamine.

The judgment was affirmed.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Tenth Circuit: Contents of Vehicle Search Suppressed Where Search Illegal at Inception

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Lopez on February 27, 2017.

On June 21, 2013, Angela Lopez was driving eastbound in Kansas. Kansas Highway Patrol Trooper Robert Krause pulled the vehicle over for going 79 miles per hour in a 65-mile-per-hour zone. Adrienne Lopez was in the passenger seat. Throughout the encounter, Adrienne, rather than Angela, did almost all of the talking, which Krause said could be a sign of nervousness. Krause asked Angela for her license, insurance, and car-rental paperwork. Krause then looked in the back seat of the car. Upon doing so, Adrienne said, “Don’t look back there, it’s a mess.” Krause asked about their travel plans. Adrienne told him that they were going form California and headed to “Kansas City or Nebraska” to rescue her sister “because she was getting beat up by her boyfriend.” Angela provided Krause a receipt from the California Department of Motor Vehicles that was issued to her when she reported losing her license, rather than her actual license.

Krause asked both occupants if they had drugs in the car, to which both replied no. Krause relayed Angela’s information to the dispatcher and learned that she had a valid driver’s license and no criminal history. Krause warned Angela for speeding and turned to walk away. He immediately turned back and asked Angela if she would answer a few more questions, which she consented to. Krause asked where they were heading. Adrienne answered that she did not know the exact city because her phone did not have reception.

Krause then asked the Defendants if he could search the vehicle. They refused. Krause then detained them until a drug dog could be brought to the vehicle, which took about twenty minutes. The dog alerted Krause to the front seat where Adrienne’s purse was located. Adrienne admitted having some marijuana in her purse, which Krause found and then searched the rest of the car. He found four packages in a cooler in the back seat of methamphetamine. The packages totaled 1,766 grams of methamphetamine.

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied Defendants’ motions to suppress the evidence of methamphetamine found in the car. The two were convicted of possessing more than 500 grams of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and of conspiracy to do the same. The Defendants appealed.

The Tenth Circuit first established that a traffic stop must be justified at its inception and that the officer’s actions during the stop must be reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that initially justified it. A stop may be extended beyond that scope if the person stopped consents to the extension or if the police have a reasonable suspicion that other illegal activity has occurred or is occurring.

Here, the Defendants did not consent to the extension of the stop by Krause beyond its initial purpose. Therefore, the Tenth Circuit addressed whether Krause had reasonable suspicion that the Defendants were engaged in criminal activity, which the government bears the burden of proving.

The government put forth three suspicious factors that justified detention: (1) Adrienne was nervous; (2) Adrienne asked Krause not to look at the backseat because it was messy, even though it was not; and (3) Defendant’s travel plans were implausible.

The Tenth Circuit first addressed Adrienne’s nervousness. It stated that it consistently assigns that factor limited significance because innocent people can be nervous in wide varieties. In order to contribute to reasonable suspicion, the Tenth Circuit held that there must be extreme nervousness, which the district court did not find, and Krause did not so testify.

Next, the Tenth Circuit held that Adrienne’s comments about the backseat gave little support for reasonable suspicion. It stated that in hindsight, the comments seemed revealing. But at the time, there was nothing incriminating in view on the backseat. Further, nothing stopped Krause from taking a closer look through the back window.

Finally, the Tenth Circuit addressed the government’s argument that the Defendants’ travel plans were implausible. The government pointed to the fact that the two only rented the car for two days, which was not enough time to drive to their destination and return. The Tenth Circuit held that the travel plans might have been overly ambitions, but they could reasonably have been done. First, the Tenth Circuit pointed to the fact that they were driving through the night, which was why two drivers were necessary. Next, because they were rescuing Adrienne’s sister from an abusive boyfriend, it was reasonable to assume they would not stay at the destination very long. Finally, because it was understandable that the sister needed to move to protect herself from her abusive boyfriend, it was reasonable that the Defendants did not need a more precise location until they were closer to the destination. Further, the Tenth Circuit stated that it has generally been reluctant to give weight to the reasonable-suspicion analysis to unusual travel purposes, except in extreme cases.

The Tenth Circuit held that the circumstances did not suffice to justify the continued detention of the Defendants. Therefore, the Tenth Circuit held that the evidence seized from the car must be suppressed.

The Tenth Circuit then quickly dispatched with the governments two remaining arguments. First, the government argued that the evidence was admissible against Adrienne because the discovery of the drugs was not the fruit of her unlawful detention. The Tenth Circuit held that because Krause seized the marijuana from Adrienne’s purse, and the detention of Adrienne’s personal property led to the search of the car and discovery of the methamphetamine, Adrienne did have standing to challenge the admission into evidence of the drugs.

Second, the government argued that the detention was lawful as to Angela because there was probable cause to arrest her for driving while not in possession of her driver’s license. The Tenth Circuit held that there was no probable cause to arrest Angela. First, the documents Angela gave Krause would likely be a “driver’s license” under the Kansas statute. Further, even if not a “driver’s license,” Krause learned from the dispatcher that she had a valid driver’s license in California, and therefore had enough information to know that she could not be convicted for the offense under the statute. The Tenth Circuit held that an officer does not have probable cause to arrest a person for a crime he know she could not be convicted of.

In sum, the Tenth Circuit reversed the Defendants’ convictions and remanded to the district court for proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Defendant Waived Voluntariness Claim by Failing to Raise it At Suppression Hearing

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Cardman on Thursday, June 29, 2017.

Due Process—Statements to Police—Interrogation—Voluntariness—Promises—Specific Performance—Waiver—Suppression Hearing.

Defendant petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the Colorado Supreme Court. The court granted the petition, vacated the judgment in Cardman I, and remanded to the court of appeals for reconsideration of the trial court’s failure to hold a hearing regarding the alleged promises the detective made to defendant during the interview. The specific issue on appeal was whether “the district court violated the defendant’s constitutional right to due process and reversibly erred by admitting statements the defendant made to a detective without first determining whether the statements were voluntary and whether the defendant was entitled to specific performance of direct and/or implied promises made to him by the detective during the interrogation.”

Defendant contended that statements he made in a police interview were not voluntary and that the trial court erred by not holding a hearing sua sponte on the voluntariness of the statements. Although there were serious concerns with the police interrogation tactics used in this case, defendant waived any arguments on the voluntariness issue by not raising it during the suppression hearing. Further, defendant did not request and the court was not required to sua sponte hold a hearing on voluntariness.

Defendant also contended that the court of appeals must remand for a hearing on whether he was entitled to specific performance of alleged promises made to him by police during an interview. However, defendant did not seek to enforce the alleged promises before trial and cited no cases in support of his argument.

The judgment was affirmed.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: District Court Properly Denied Motion to Suppress on Facts of Case

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Stock on Monday, July 3, 2017.

Fourth Amendment—Exceptions to Warrant Requirement—Consent Searches—Third-Party Consent.

The supreme court reviewed the court of appeals’ opinion reversing Stock’s convictions and remanding for a new trial. The court of appeals concluded that the trial court erred in denying Stock’s motion to suppress statements she made to a police officer inside the hotel room where Stock lived. The police officer had entered the hotel room after Stock’s father—who did not live in the hotel room—opened the door in response to the officer’s knock. The court of appeals concluded that suppression was required because Stock’s father lacked authority to consent to the officer’s entry. The supreme court concluded that the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress because, on the facts of this case, the officer’s limited entry into Stock’s hotel room, in her immediate presence and without her objection, did not violate Stock’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches. The court therefore reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Tenth Circuit: Drug Dog Search Illegal Where Warning Given for Speeding and Consent to Search Refused

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Lopez on February 27, 2017.

On June 21, 2013, Angela Lopez was driving eastbound in Kansas. Kansas Highway Patrol Trooper Robert Krause pulled the vehicle over for going 79 milers per hour in a 65-mile-per-hour zone. Adrienne Lopez was in the passenger seat. Throughout the encounter, Adrienne, rather than Angela, did almost all of the talking, which Krause said could be a sign of nervousness. Krause asked Angela for her license, insurance, and car-rental paperwork. Krause then looked in the back seat of the car. Upon doing so, Adrienne said, “Don’t look back there, it’s a mess.” Krause asked about their travel plans. Adrienne told him that they were going from California and headed to “Kansas City or Nebraska” to rescue her sister “because she was getting beat up by her boyfriend.” Angela provided Krause a receipt from the California Department of Motor Vehicles that was issued to her when she reported losing her license, rather than her actual license.

Krause asked both occupants if they had drugs in the car, to which both replied no. Krause relayed Angela’s information to the dispatcher and learned that she had a valid driver’s license and no criminal history. Krause warned Angela for speeding and turned to walk away. He immediately turned back and asked Angela if she would answer a few more questions, which she consented to. Krause asked where they were heading. Adrienne answered that she did not know the exact city because her phone did not have reception.

Krause then asked the Defendants if he could search the vehicle. They refused. Krause then detained them until a drug dog could be brought to the vehicle, which took about twenty minutes. The dog alerted Krause to the front seat where Adrienne’s purse was located. Adrienne admitted having some marijuana in her purse, which Krause found and then searched the rest of the car. He found four packages in a cooler in the back seat of methamphetamine. The packages totaled 1,766 grams of methamphetamine.

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied Defendants’ motions to suppress the evidence of methamphetamine found in the car. The two were convicted of possessing more than 500 grams of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and of conspiracy to do the same. The Defendants appealed.

The Tenth Circuit first established that a traffic stop must be justified at its inception and that the officer’s actions during the stop must be reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that initially justified it. A stop may be extended beyond that scope if the person stopped consents to the extension or if the police have a reasonable suspicion that other illegal activity has occurred or is occurring.

Here, the Defendants did not consent to the extension of the stop by Krause beyond its initial purpose. Therefore, the Tenth Circuit addressed whether Krause had reasonable suspicion that the Defendants were engaged in criminal activity, which the government bears the burden of proving.

The government put forth three suspicious factors that justified detention: (1) Adrienne was nervous; (2) Adrienne asked Krause not to look at the backseat because it was messy, even though it was not; and (3) Defendant’s travel plans were implausible.

The Tenth Circuit first addressed Adrienne’s nervousness. It stated that it consistently assigns that factor limited significance because innocent people can be nervous in wide varieties. In order to contribute to reasonable suspicion, the Tenth Circuit held that there must be extreme nervousness, which the district court did not find, and Krause did not so testify.

Next, the Tenth Circuit held that Adrienne’s comments about the backseat gave little support for reasonable suspicion. It stated that in hindsight, the comments seemed revealing. But at the time, there was nothing incriminating in view on the backseat. Further, nothing stopped Krause from taking a closer look through the back window.

Finally, the Tenth Circuit addressed the government’s argument that the Defendants’ travel plans were implausible. The government pointed to the fact that the two only rented the car for two days, which was not enough time to drive to their destination and return. The Tenth Circuit held that the travel plans might have been overly ambitions, but they could reasonably have been done. First, the Tenth Circuit pointed to the fact that they were driving through the night, which was why two drivers were necessary. Next, because they were rescuing Adrienne’s sister from an abusive boyfriend, it was reasonable to assume they would not stay at the destination very long. Finally, because it was understandable that the sister needed to move to protect herself from her abusive boyfriend, it was reasonable that the Defendants did not need a more precise location until they were closer to the destination. Further, the Tenth Circuit stated that it has generally been reluctant to give weight to the reasonable-suspicion analysis to unusual travel purposes, except in extreme cases.

The Tenth Circuit held that the circumstances did not suffice to justify the continued detention of the Defendants. Therefore, the Tenth Circuit held that the evidence seized from the car must be suppressed.

The Tenth Circuit then quickly dispatched with the governments two remaining arguments. First, the government argued that the evidence was admissible against Adrienne because the discovery of the drugs was not the fruit of her unlawful detention. The Tenth Circuit held that because Krause seized the marijuana from Adrienne’s purse, and the detention of Adrienne’s personal property led to the search of the car and discovery of the methamphetamine, Adrienne did have standing to challenge the admission into evidence of the drugs.

Second, the government argued that the detention was lawful as to Angela because there was probable cause to arrest her for driving while not in possession of her driver’s license. The Tenth Circuit held that there was no probable cause to arrest Angela. First, the documents Angela gave Krause would likely be a “driver’s license” under the Kansas statute. Further, even if not a “driver’s license,” Krause learned from the dispatcher that she had a valid driver’s license in California, and therefore had enough information to know that she could not be convicted for the offense under the statute. The Tenth Circuit held that an officer does not have probable cause to arrest a person for a crime he know she could not be convicted of.

In sum, the Tenth Circuit reversed the Defendants’ convictions and remanded to the district court for proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Colorado Supreme Court: Statements to Military Investigator Considered Voluntary

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People in Interest of Z.T.T. on Monday, May 22, 2017.

Criminal Law—Evidence Suppression.

This interlocutory appeal required the Colorado Supreme Court to determine whether a defendant’s confession to an Army investigator during basic training was the product of coercion. The court held that, where a defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights, knew he was free to leave an interview, and confessed to committing a crime during the course of a conversational, friendly interview devoid of coercive promises or threats, he gave his statements voluntarily. The court therefore reversed the trial court’s suppression order and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Tenth Circuit: Reasonable Person Would Not Have Felt Free to Leave When Stopped by Officers

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Hernandez on Thursday, February 9, 2017.

Phillip Hernandez was charged with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C § 922(g)(1). The district court granted his motion to suppress the evidence, as it was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unlawful seizure during his encounter with two police officers. The government appealed, claiming that the court should apply the subsequent decision in Utah v. Streiff, and arguing that the district court failed to properly apply the Spence factors to the seizure.

On October 20, 2014, two police officers observed Phillip Hernandez walking near a construction site in a known high crime area. The uniformed officers asked Hernandez if they could speak to him, and began asking him questions while driving along side him in their marked police car as Hernandez continued walking. The officers eventually asked Hernandez to stop so they could ask him additional questions. While questioning Hernandez, the officers discovered an active warrant against him and that Hernandez was in possession of a firearm. Hernandez filed a motion to suppress the firearm evidence, which the district court granted.

On appeal, the government asserted that the Supreme Court’s decision in Utah v. Streiff should apply to this case. In Streiff, the Supreme Court ruled that courts may admit illegally obtained evidence as long as the link between the evidence and the illegal method is sufficiently remote, in a case where the evidence in question was obtained by police officers who illegally stop someone and later discover an existing warrant against that person. The Tenth Circuit, however, rejected the application of the decision in Streiff, agreeing with Hernandez that the government had waived the right to present this argument as they had failed to assert it at the district court level.

The court next turned to the government’s argument that the lower court improperly applied the Spence factors to Hernandez’s encounter with the two officers because officers are free to approach individuals and question them. The court stated that the crucial test to determine if an unlawful seizure has occurred is if the officer’s conduct would lead a reasonable person under similar circumstances to believe they were not free to ignore the police presence and leave the situation. The court agreed with the district court’s application of the factors enumerated in United States v. Spence, stating that once the police officers asked Hernandez to stop, because there were two uniformed police officers in a police car at night without other witnesses present, a reasonable person would not have felt he could walk away.

Finally, the court addressed if the officers had reasonable suspicion to justify an investigative detention. In considering the reasonableness of the detention, the court looked at if there were “specific and articulable facts and rational inferences drawn from those facts” that gave the officers reasonable suspicion that Hernandez was involved in criminal activity. The court looked at the officer’s stated reasons for suspicion, including that Hernandez was walking near a construction site where there had been prior thefts, Hernandez was in a high crime area, Hernandez chose not to walk on the side of the street with a sidewalk, and Hernandez was dressed in all black clothing and carrying two backpacks. The court ultimately determined that, although the level of suspicion required for a Terry stop is less than that required for an arrest, the circumstances in this case did not rise to the requisite level for the officers to stop Hernandez.

Justice Briscoe dissented, stating that he believed the encounter between Hernandez and the officers was more along the lines of a consensual encounter and did not constitute an unlawful seizure considering the circumstances.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of a motion to suppress the evidence.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Statements in Police Interviews Were Not Voluntary and Should Not Have Been Admitted

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Springsted on Thursday, December 30, 2016.

Statements—Police Interviews—Involuntary.

In this murder case, the prosecution presented evidence that the victim was shot by two people. The primary issue at trial was the identity of the second shooter. The shooting occurred inside the home of codefendant Malory (Popeye), who was the first shooter. Springsted was present during the incident. Within an hour of the shooting, Springsted was interviewed by police in a police interview room. Over the next four days, the police interviewed Springsted five more times over the course of more than 11 hours. While some evidence implicated Springsted as the second shooter, the serological evidence implicated only Popeye as a shooter. Springsted was convicted of one count of first degree murder, one count of conspiracy to commit first degree murder, and two counts of violent crime.

On appeal, Springsted challenged the court’s admission of his statements from the police interviews, alleging that they were obtained involuntarily. When a defendant seeks to suppress statements as involuntary, the prosecution must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the statements resulted from the maker’s free and unconstrained choice. After a careful review of the totality of the circumstances of the more than 11 hours of videotape, the Colorado Court of Appeals determined that the statements from the first two interviews were voluntary and admissible. However, Springsted’s statements in the remaining interviews were involuntary and should have been suppressed. Because there was a reasonable possibility that the statements from these interviews contributed to Springsted’s convictions, the error was not harmless.

The judgments were reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Officer Had Reasonable and Articulable Basis to Conduct Protective Search of Vehicle

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Delacruz on Monday, December 5, 2o16.

Fourth Amendment—Traffic Stops—Protective Search of a Vehicle.

In this interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed the trial court’s order suppressing a firearm that police seized from a vehicle in which defendant was a passenger. The Court concluded that the firearm was discovered during a valid protective search of the vehicle under Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983), given the circumstances confronting the officer at the time of the search. The officer had an articulable and objectively reasonable basis to conduct a protective search of the passenger compartment of the vehicle because (1) the investigatory stop occurred in an area the officer testified was known for frequent criminal activity; (2) defendant appeared to have given the officer a false name; and (3) the officer observed a large knife on the front floorboard near defendant’s feet when the officer asked him to step out of the vehicle for questioning. The Court further concluded that the officer did not exceed the lawful scope of a protective search by looking behind the driver’s seat because the rear floorboard is an area of sufficient size to conceal a weapon and would have been within the reaching distance of a vehicle occupant.

The trial court’s suppression order was reversed.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Warrant Establishes Long String of Criminal History Despite Lack of Specific Dates

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Cooper on Monday, November 21, 2016.

In September 2015, officers requested and obtained a search warrant for Lonnie Cooper’s residence and vehicles based for illegal drugs. The affidavit supporting the warrant contained information from a confidential informant about the drug activity, but did not contain any specific dates when the activity occurred. An Alamosa County magistrate signed the warrant the day it was presented, and police searched Cooper’s home, finding controlled substances, drug paraphernalia, and weapons. Cooper was charged with multiple counts.

Cooper moved to suppress the results of the search warrant, arguing that the supporting affidavit was so lacking in indicia of probable cause that no reasonable officer could, in good faith, rely on it. The trial court granted the motion. The trial court was particularly concerned about the affidavit’s “staleness,” or the lack of exact dates. The State filed an interlocutory appeal, and the Colorado Supreme Court reversed the suppression order.

The State argued that even if the warrant was stale and issued in error, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule should apply. The supreme court agreed. The court focused on the “bare bones” situation where the good faith exception would not apply, namely “where the warrant is based on an affidavit so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.” Because in this case there was considerable evidence of ongoing drug trafficking activity, an officer could have a reasonable, good faith belief that the warrant was proper.

The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s suppression order. Justice Hood concurred, and Justice Marquez joined in the concurrence.

Colorado Supreme Court: Presence of Juvenile Defendant’s Parent Satisfies Statutory Requirement

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People in Interest of A.L.-C. on Monday, October 24, 2016.

The juvenile defendant, A.L.-C., was charged with sexual assault on a child after his little sister, B.O., reported that he had touched her inappropriately and had intercourse with her. Defendant’s mother, also the mother of B.O., had accompanied him to his forensic interview. During a recorded exchange in which Defendant, his mother, and his step-father discussed whether he would waive his Miranda rights, Defendant’s mother asked him if he understood his rights and he said he did. She informed him that she had to protect B.O. and chided him for never paying attention. Defendant told his mother that he would rather keep quiet. It was disputed whether he meant he would rather not talk to his mother or the detective.

Defendant’s mother was present for the entire forensic interview. At first, Defendant denied B.O.’s allegations, but after being confronted with details from an earlier interview with B.O., Defendant confessed. He was charged with sexual assault on a child.

Before trial, Defendant sought to suppress his statements in the forensic interview, arguing that that his mother’s presence did not satisfy the requirement in C.R.S. § 19-2-511(1) that a parent be present at the interview because his mother did not hold his interests “uppermost in mind.” The trial court agreed and suppressed Defendant’s statements. The People filed an interlocutory appeal with the Colorado Supreme Court regarding whether the statute required more than Defendant’s parent’s presence at the interview.

The supreme court analyzed the statute and determined its plain language required nothing more than a parent’s presence during advisement and interrogation. Defendant argued that the statute requires not only a parent’s presence, but also that the parent hold the defendant’s interest “uppermost in mind,” citing several cases. The supreme court distinguished case law advanced by Defendant, noting that in those cases it was not a parent present at the interview. The supreme court held that the shared interest analysis from the prior cases was inapposite because a parent was already in one of the statutorily defined categories. 

The court noted that although its holding may seem to differ from People v. Hayhurst, 571 P.2d 721 (Colo. 1977), it was actually in line with Hayhurst. In that case, the supreme court held that a parent could not fulfill his statutory role if his interests were adverse to his child’s. However, the court also held that the fact that the father was upset with his son did not necessarily mean their interests were adverse.

The supreme court reversed the trial court’s suppression order and remanded for further proceedings.