July 22, 2019

Colorado Supreme Court: Deputy Had Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion to Stop Defendant; Suppression Order Reversed

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Threlkel on Monday, March 11, 2019.

Investigatory Stop—Grounds for Stop or Investigation—Fellow-Officer Rule.

An extensive narcotics investigation culminated in arrest warrants for defendant and her significant other based on their alleged distribution of controlled substances. While attempting to execute the warrants, deputies observed a truck belonging to defendant’s significant other driving away from the residence shared by the couple. The deputies suspected that defendant was a passenger in the truck. As the deputies tried to stop the truck, it evaded them. At one point, the deputies observed a white bag fly out of the passenger window, which supported their belief that there was a passenger in the truck. The truck eventually stopped within a mile of the home. Inside, they located defendant’s significant other, but not defendant. Moments later, however, defendant was spotted a couple of hundred yards away, attempting to hitch a ride. It was a frigid and snowy night, the roads were slippery, and there was no easy access on foot between the home and the location of the stop. A deputy who recognized defendant detained her, and she was later arrested on her outstanding warrant.

The trial court suppressed all evidence and observations derived from defendant’s stop, finding that the deputies lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to detain her. Later, the trial court explained that its suppression order included the deputies’ observations and investigation before they contacted defendant. The supreme court reversed. It concluded that the deputies had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop defendant. It further concluded that the trial court lacked authority to suppress the deputies’ observations and investigation before they contacted defendant.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Juvenile’s Miranda Waiver Sufficiently Reliable Under Totality of Circumstances

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Barrios on Monday, January 28, 2019.

Juvenile—Miranda—Advisement Waiver.

In this case, the supreme court considered whether a juvenile’s Miranda advisement waiver was reliable under the totality of the circumstances. The court held that the police detective complied with the provisions of the juvenile Miranda waiver statute, C.R.S. § 19-2-511, and that the concerns identified by the trial court do not undermine the reliability of the waiver. Because both the juvenile and his legal guardian were fully advised of all the juvenile’s rights and the juvenile issued a reliable waiver, his statements to police should not be suppressed. Accordingly, the trial court’s order suppressing the juvenile’s statements was reversed.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Totality of Circumstances, Including Drug Dog’s Alert, Provided Probable Cause for Car Search

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Bailey on Monday, October 15, 2018.

Searches and Seizures—Probable Cause—Search Without Warrant—Odor Detection—Use of Dogs.

In this interlocutory appeal, the supreme court considered whether the trial court erred in ruling that state troopers lacked probable cause to search defendant’s car when they placed Mason, a narcotics-detecting dog, inside the car to sniff around. The court held that the totality of the circumstances, including Mason’s alert to the odor of narcotics while sniffing the exterior of defendant’s car, provided the troopers with probable cause to search the car. The fact that Mason’s alert was not a final indication did not render it irrelevant to the troopers’ probable cause determination. Therefore, the court reversed the trial court’s order suppressing evidence collected by the troopers during a subsequent hand search of the car.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Exclusionary Rule Correctly Applied to Suppress Results of Illegal Collection of Juvenile’s DNA

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Casillas v. People on Monday, September 24, 2018.

Evidence—Searches and Seizures—Exclusionary Rule.

In this criminal appeal, the supreme court reviewed whether the exclusionary rule required the suppression of evidence derived from a juvenile probation officer’s unauthorized collection of DNA from a juvenile in violation of C.R.S. § 19-2-925.6 and the Fourth Amendment. The court held that (1) juvenile probation officers are properly considered adjuncts to law enforcement; (2) the officer’s collection of the juvenile’s DNA for uploading to CODIS served an inherent law enforcement function; (3) nothing in the record suggests the officer conducted the buccal swab search in reliance on misinformation provided by a third party; and (4) the unlawful search here was not based on a reasonable misinterpretation of the law. Because suppression would have a deterrent effect by removing incentives to collect DNA from ineligible juvenile offenders, the court held that suppression was warranted. Accordingly, the court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and remanded the case with instructions to vacate petitioner’s conviction.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Suppression Not Warranted where Defendant Dropped Drugs Prior to Seizure

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Taylor on Monday, April 30, 2018.

Arrest—Seizure—Suppression.

Pursuant to C.A.R. 4.1, the People challenged an order of the district court granting Taylor’s motion to suppress drug evidence. The supreme court held that the district court erred in granting Taylor’s motion to suppress because no seizure had yet taken place when Taylor dropped the drugs.

The court reversed the district court’s suppression order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Officers Acquired Reasonable Suspicion By the Time Stop Became Investigatory

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Fields and People v. Reed on Tuesday, January 16, 2018.

Contact-Short-of-a-Stop—Reasonable Articulable Suspicion—Probable Cause—Inevitable Discovery.

The People brought interlocutory appeals, as authorized by C.R.S. § 16-12-102(2) and C.A.R. 4.1, from the district court’s orders suppressing contraband and statements in the related prosecutions of defendants Fields and Reed. The district court found that the initial contact with both defendants in a parked car constituted an investigatory stop for which the police lacked reasonable articulable suspicion, and it suppressed all evidence acquired after the point of initial contact as the fruit of an unlawful stop.

The supreme court reversed the district court’s suppression orders and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that the district court failed to appreciate that the officers’ initial contact with defendants fell short of a stop. By the point at which the contact progressed to a seizure within the contemplation of the Fourth Amendment, the officers had acquired the requisite reasonable articulable suspicion, and subsequently probable cause, to justify their investigative conduct, or inevitably would have lawfully arrested defendants and discovered the contraband.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Warrantless Searches Justified by Probable Cause or Exigent Circumstances

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Ball on Monday, December 18, 2017.

Scope of an Investigatory Stop—Domestic Violence—Custodial Interrogation—Automobile Exception.

The People filed an interlocutory appeal, as authorized by C.R.S. § 16-12-102(2) and C.A.R. 4.1, from an order of the district court suppressing statements made by, and contraband seized from, Ball. Although the district court found her initial stop to be supported by reasonable articulable suspicion, it nevertheless found that before she made any inculpatory statements, the seizure of her person had exceeded the permissible scope of an investigatory stop; that she was already under arrest by the time she was interrogated without the benefit of Miranda warnings; and that her subsequent consent to search her purse and car was not voluntary.

The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the district court’s suppression order and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that the district court either misapprehended or misapplied the controlling legal standards governing investigatory stops, arrests, and custodial interrogations, and that the warrantless searches of defendant’s car and purse were justified on the basis of probable cause and exigent circumstances, without regard for the voluntariness of her consent or compliance with the dictates of C.R.S. § 16-1-301, the statute governing consensual vehicle searches in this jurisdiction.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

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.