Decision here.
The court makes a lot of contrasting references to People v. Revoal in this decision.
Two police officers saw Funez-Paiagua standing on the property of a closed auto shop on Colfax at 1 AM. There were no other open businesses in the area (which had seen a recent increase in crime), and although Colfax is generally a busy street there was no one else around at the time. One of the officers approached the place where he had last seen Funez-Paiagua, who was gone. Then the officers heard a crash (a car stereo amp falling to the ground) and saw Funez-Paiagua running away. They chased after Funez-Paiagua, ordering him to stop. Funez-Paiagua stopped, identified himself, and was subsequently arrested on four outstanding warrants. During a search incident to arrest of a bag he was carrying, the officers found a gun. Funez-Paiagua was charged with POWPO.
The trial court held that there was no reasonable suspicion to justify the stop, and suppressed the gun. The people filed an interlocutory appeal.
The Colorado Supreme Court observed that the trial court seemed to base its analysis on whether or not there was reasonable suspicion when the officers approached Funez-Paiagau, but that the proper question is whether or not there was reasonable suspicion when they ordered him to stop. The court also drew a couple distinctions between Revoal and Funez-Paiagua: both were contacted at business in high-crime areas late at night, but in Revoal's case there were open businesses nearby and in Funez-Paiagua's case there were not. Where Revoal was walking aimlessly through a parking lot and changed direction to avoid the police, Funez-Paiagua was seen running away and carrying bags after an officer heard a car stereo amp crash to the ground in an auto body shop.
The court held that these circumstances supported reasonable suspicion that Funez-Paiagua had stolen items from some of the cars in the lot, and that the officers were justified in detaining him. The suppression of the gun has been reversed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think the biggest difference between this case and Revoal is that here the facts offer credible reasons to believe that the suspect was committing a specific crime. In Revoal, there was just a vague, unsupported suspicion that the suspect was up to something.
ReplyDelete