After a police officer felt a pill bottle in defendant’s jacket during the course of an investigatory stop, the officer asked defendant, “I know this is a pill bottle, what is it?” In response, defendant removed a pill bottle from his pocket and showed it to the officer, who could see that it contained baggies of illegal drugs. Here, the Supreme Court considered whether that question exceeded the scope of the investigatory stop. Because the Court concluded that the officer’s question did not measurably extend defendant’s stop, it held that the question about the pill bottle did not exceed the scope of the investigatory stop. Thus, it reversed the district court’s suppression order.

In this case, the Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction to consider the following question certified to the Court by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals: Has the Supreme Court crafted an exception to the doctrine of res judicata such that a prior action under CRCP 106(a)(4) cannot preclude 42 USC § 1983 claims brought in federal court, even though such claims could have been brought in the prior state action?

Plaintiff was terminated from his job as a deputy sheriff with the Denver Sheriff’s Department. He sought review of his termination before the Denver Career Service Board (Board). After a hearing officer and the Board affirmed plaintiff’s termination, he filed a CRCP 106(a)(4) claim for judicial review in Denver District Court, naming present defendant, among others, as defendants. In addition, plaintiff filed a separate action pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 against defendant, among others, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The Denver District Court ultimately affirmed the Board’s order upholding plaintiff’s termination, and defendant thereafter sought and obtained leave to amend its answer in the federal action to assert a defense of claim preclusion. Defendant then moved for summary judgment in the federal action based on this defense. The federal district court subsequently granted that motion, and plaintiff appealed. The Tenth Circuit then certified the present question to the Supreme Court, which accepted jurisdiction.

Here, the Court answers “no” to the certified question, concluding that, under Colorado state law, § 1983 claims are not excepted from the claim preclusion doctrine such that a prior CRCP 106(a)(4) action cannot preclude a § 1983 claim that could have been brought in the prior state action.

In this original proceeding, the Supreme Court addressed whether defendant has a right to demand and receive a preliminary hearing given that: (1) he is charged with a level 4 drug felony not eligible for a preliminary hearing; (2) he is separately charged with a special offender count; and (3) he will stand convicted of a level 1 drug felony eligible for a preliminary hearing if the People prove both counts beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury. The Court concluded that defendant is entitled to demand and to receive a preliminary hearing because the People have accused him of a level 1 drug felony and have charged him accordingly (albeit through a combination of two separate counts). Therefore, the Court made the rule to show cause absolute.