Colorado Supreme Court Opinions

July 03, 2017

2017 CO 80. No. 14SC870. People v. Stock.

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.

Read More..

2017 CO 81. No. 15SC502. Keim v. Douglas County School District.

Campaign Finance—Fair Campaign Practices Act—Campaign Contributions.

The Supreme Court reviewed the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that a school district did not make a prohibited campaign contribution in a school board election campaign under CRS § 1-45-117(1)(a) of Colorado’s Fair Campaign Practices Act and article XXVIII, § 2(5)(a)(IV) of the Colorado Constitution. Under § 2(5)(a)(IV), a “contribution” requires that (1) something of value (2) be given to a candidate, directly or indirectly, (3) for the purpose of promoting the candidate’s nomination, retention, recall, or election. Here, the school district commissioned and paid for a report supportive of the district’s reform agenda using public funds. However, because the school district did not give something, directly or indirectly, to any candidate when it publicly disseminated an email containing a link to the report, the Court concluded that the school district did not make a prohibited contribution under these Colorado campaign finance provisions. The Court therefore affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

 

Read More..

2017 CO 82. No. 17SA14. People v. Kendrick.

Disqualification—Special Circumstances.

In this interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s decision to disqualify the District Attorney’s Office for the Fourth Judicial District from re-prosecuting defendant’s case after a second mistrial. The Court concluded that the district court misinterpreted the “special circumstances” prong of CRS § 20-1-107(2) in finding that the circumstances at issue satisfy the high burden required to bar an entire district attorney’s office from prosecuting a defendant. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in disqualifying the District Attorney’s Office, reversed the district court’s order, and remanded the case for further proceedings.


Read More..