Friday, January 20, 2012

Colorado Supreme Court People v. Strimple 11SA217

Decision.

   Strimple's common law wife called the police from a gas station to report that he had spit on her, pushed her around, broken her phone, and thrown her out of their house.  She told the police that she was afraid for her children (still in the house with Strimple), and that Strimple had a gun.  She gave written consent for the police to search the house.

   Police tried to contact Strimple, and a standoff ensued.  Strimple ordered police off of his property, called them names, and made threats.  After half an hour, Strimple surrendered.  He initially denied having a gun, but then admitted that there was a gun in the sofa.  Police conducted a protective sweep of the house, locating the four children (who were unharmed) and a gun under a cushion on the sofa (I would take issue with them finding this during a protective sweep if Strimple hadn't told them where it was).  Off to jail Strimple goes.

   Afterwards, Strimple's common-law wife informed the police of additional weapons in the house that she wanted removed, and again gave consent to search.  The police found some kinves, drug paraphernalia, and a pipe bomb.  Strimple was charged with possession of the pipe bomb and a handful of DV charges.  At trial, he moved to suppress all evidence found in the home on the grounds that even though his wife had given consent to search the house (and had standing to give consent), he had refused that consent during the standoff.

   The trial court held that the protective sweep was reasonable, and admitted the handgun found during the protective sweep into evidence.  The trial court further held that Strimple's refusal during the standoff trumped his wife's consent to search the house, so the pipe bomb and paraphernalia were suppressed.  The people filed an interlocutory appeal.

   The court discusses some factually similar cases from other circuits.  In the Seventh Circuit, once the objecting party has been validly removed (for a reason other than to overcome his objection), the remaining party may again consent to a search.  In the Ninth Circuit, the objecting party's objection remains in force even after he or she has been removed, unless there is evidence that the objecting party has changed his mind.  In this decision, the Colorado Supreme Court follows the reasoning of the Seventh Circuit, and holds that Strimple's objection to the search lost its effect when he was removed from the house (and that there is no evidence that the police removed him for the purpose of overcoming his objection).  The court also discusses the danger that the weapons posed if the had remained in the house.  The suppression order was reversed and the case was returned to the trial court.

   Chief Justice Bender filed a dissenting opinion, asserting that the evidence should have been suppressed.

1 comment:

  1. Now see also http://thehonorablecourt.blogspot.com/2014/02/us-supreme-court-fernandez-v-california.html. This case would have been a much easier decision if it happened today. And once again, it seems that one of the best ways to predict what the Supreme Court will do is to just disagree with the Ninth Circuit.

    ReplyDelete