Monday, June 18, 2012

Colorado Supreme Court People v. Vissarriagas 11SA288

Decision here.

   Police were conducting surveillance on a suspected drug house, and when some of the occupants left in a car they followed it with the intent to find an independent reason to stop it, and to search it if the circumstances allowed.  The car ran a red light, the driver had no license or insurance, and the license plates didn't actually belong no the car (or on any other car, apparently).  Vissarriagas (I'm already sick of typing that name) was a passenger, and she was arrested after the police learned that she had a warrant.

   During a pre-impound inventory of the car, police found an open purse with heroin and paraphernalia.  Vissarriagas was charged with possession, and moved to suppress the search on the grounds that it was conducted with neither consent nor warrant.

   The trial court actually did suppress the evidence, on the spurious grounds that the entire traffic stop was invalid since it was a pretextual stop.  The court held that the driver had run a red light, but ruled that since the police were looking for a reason to stop the car to further another investigation, the stop was invalid anyway.  Naturally, the prosecution appealed.

   The Colorado Supreme Court held that where there is an objectively reasonable basis for a stop (like running a red light, just for one totally random example), it doesn't matter what the police officer's subjective intent is.  So contrary to the trial court's ruling, the stop in this case was valid.  The supreme court also explained that an inventory of a vehicle which is lawfully in police custody is an exception to the warrant requirement, so long as the inventory is conducted in accordance with department policies and not as a pretext for an investigatory search (an important distinction: the fact that an officer hopes to find incriminating evidence in such a search is not enough to render it illegal.  The focus of the court's inquiry should be on the objective reasonableness of the officer's actions.  The search must be conducted according to standardized criteria with some basis other than criminal investigation).

   The trial court had already incorrectly suppressed the evidence on the basis of a bad stop, so the issue of whether or not the inventory was conducted according to policy was never explored at the trial level.  This meant that there was insufficient evidence in the record for the supreme court to resolve this issue.  The decision of the trial court was vacated, and the case was sent back to the trial court with instructions to determine whether or not the search itself was good (with the understanding that the stop was valid).

   I've always wondered what it's like to bring a case in front of the same judge after his previous findings have been reversed by a higher court.  It seems like it would be awkward.

No comments:

Post a Comment