green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
23.1 score
“when the police seek to enter a home without a warrant, the government bears the burden of proving that sufficient exigency existed to justify the war-rantless search and seizure.”
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
People v. Mendoza-Balderama
(6×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
when the police seek to enter a home without a warrant, the government bears the burden of proving that sufficient exigency existed to justify the war-rantless search and seizure.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Carr
“Exigent circumstances may exist when (1) the police are engaged in a bona fide pursuit of a fleeing suspect, (2) there is a risk of immediate destruction of evidence, or (3) there is a colorable claim of emergency threatening the life or safety of another.” People v. Crawford, 891 P.2d 255, 258 (Colo. 1995). ¶ 22 No one, much less a police officer without medical training, can know with certainty what will happen when packaged drugs are swallowed. 5 People v. Cappellia, 208 Cal.App.3d 1331 , 256 Cal.Rptr. 695, 700 (1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Terhorst
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Id . at 282; People v. Crawford , 891 P.2d 255, 258 (Colo. 1995).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Terhorst
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Id . at 282; People v. Crawford , 891 P.2d 255, 258 (Colo. 1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. WEHMAS
For example, when we are presented with a claim of a risk of immediate destruction of evidence, our cases consistently explain that the prosecution must show "an articulable basis on the part of the police to justify a reasonable belief that evidence is about to be removed *649 or destroyed." People v. Turner, 660 P.2d 1284, 1287-88 (Colo.1983), disapproved on other grounds by People v. Schoondermark, 759 P.2d 715, 719 (Colo.1988), cited in Garcia, 752 P.2d at 581 , People v. Crawford, 891 P.2d 255, 258-59 (Colo.1995), and Mendez, 986 P.2d at 282 ; see also Aarness, 150 P.3d at 1278 (citing Me…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Wehmas
(2×)
For example, when we are presented with a claim of a risk of immediate destruction of evidence, our cases consistently explain that the prosecution must show "an articulable basis on the part of the police to justify a reasonable belief that evidence is about to be removed *649 or destroyed." People v. Turner, 660 P.2d 1284, 1287-88 (Colo.1983), disapproved on other grounds by People v. Schoondermark, 759 P.2d 715, 719 (Colo.1988), cited in Garcia, 752 P.2d at 581 , People v. Crawford, 891 P.2d 255, 258-59 (Colo.1995), and Mendez, 986 P.2d at 282 ; see also Aarness, 150 P.3d at 1278 (citing Me…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Lussier
Whether a particular suspect was sophisticated enough to recognize his imminent arrest and the “wisdom” of destroying evidence is irrelevant because officers “cannot be expected to know an individual defendant’s proclivities and to adapt their investigative techniques to those characteristics.” People v. Crawford, 891 P.2d 255, 259 (Colo.1995) (holding that 8:15 a.m. warrantless entry and search of sexual-assault suspect’s residence was justified by exigent circumstances where suspect could have awakened to find that victim had left and, fearing arrest, would destroy evidence).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Davis
Payton, 445 U.S. at 590 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 ; People v. Aarness, 150 P.3d 1271, 1277 (Colo.2006); People v. Crawford, 891 P.2d 255, 258 (Colo.1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Schafer
Exigent circumstances have been found to support a warrantless search in three situations: where “(1) the police are engaged in a bona fide pursuit of a fleeing suspect, (2) there is a risk of immediate destruction of evidence, or (3) there is a colorable claim of emergency threatening the life or safety of another.” People v. Crawford, 891 P.2d 255, 258 (Colo.1995).
examined
Cited "see"
Mendez v. People
(6×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See People v. Crawford, 891 P.2d 255, 258 (Colo.1995).
cited
Cited "see"
People v. Kluhsman
See People v. Crawford, 891 P.2d 255, 258 (Colo.1995); Jansen, 713 P.2d at 911 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Winpigler
See Kiwhsman, 980 P.2d at 584 ; see also People v. Crawford, 891 P.2d 255 , 258 (Colo.1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Staton
Thus, the seizure meets the “reasonable nexus standard.” See People v. Franklin, 640 P.2d 226, 230 (Colo. 1982) (“the officer seizing the article must have present knowledge of facts which establish a reasonable nexus between the article to be seized—whether ‘mere evidence’ or otherwise—and criminal behavior”) (footnote omitted); see also People v. Crawford, 891 P.2d 255, 260 (Colo.1995) (discussing reasonable nexus in the context of a search pursuant to probable cause and exigency).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
EATON CORPORATION, Petitioner,
v.
James SIMON; Marilyn Simon; And Rob Coppola D/B/A Designer Spas and Hot Tubs, Respondents
v.
James SIMON; Marilyn Simon; And Rob Coppola D/B/A Designer Spas and Hot Tubs, Respondents
94SC137.
Supreme Court of Colorado.
Feb 21, 1995.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
ORDER OF COURT
Upon consideration of the Record on Appeal, together with the Written and Oral Arguments of Counsel, and now being sufficiently advised in the premises,
IT IS THIS DAY ORDERED that the Writ of Certiorari heretofore granted be, and is, DENIED as having been improvidently granted.