13 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2022 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Petersen v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2021“An apparent authority analysis begins by conceding that the consent obtained by police is legally invalid because the consenting third party lacks sufficient authority over the property to consent to a search.” Petersen v. People, 939 P.2d 824, 830 (Colo. 1997). 2021"An apparent authority analysis begins by conceding that the consent obtained by police is legally invalid because the consenting third party lacks sufficient authority over the property to consent to a search." Petersen v. People , 939 P.2d 824, 830 ( Colo. 1997 ) . | 3 | 4 |
United States v. Abel Gilberto Salinas-Canogreen2 sentences1997See United States v. Elliott, 50 F.3d 180, 186 (2d Cir.1995) (officer's erroneous belief that landlords are generally authorized to consent to a search of a tenant's premises), cert. denied, ____ U.S. ____, 116 S.Ct. 715 , 133 L.Ed.2d 669 (1996); United States v. Brown, 961 F.2d 1039, 1041 (2d Cir.1992) (officer incorrectly concluded that individual authorized to enter apartment to turn off appliances and lights could consent to search); United States v. Salinas-Cano, 959 F.2d 861, 865-66 (10th Cir.1992) (officer's mistaken belief that apartment tenant could conduct search of another's suitcas 1994See United States v. Salinas-Cano, 959 F.2d 861, 865 (10th Cir.1992) (where police knew that the apartment searched was rented by the consenter and that the suitcase therein belonged to defendant, the information known to the officers was insufficient to support a reasonable belief in the consenter’s authority, and the apparent authority exception to the warrant requirement is inapplicable); Kennedy v. State, 578 N.E.2d 633, 638 (Ind.1991) (search of gym bag constitutional under Rodriguez where police reasonably believed that consenting party had sufficient authority to consent to a search of | 2 | 2 |
Willey v. Mayergreen1 sentence2022See Willey, 876 P.2d at 1264 (explaining that a power of attorney is “a written document by which one party, as principal, appoints another as 28 agent (attorney-in-fact) and confers upon the latter the authority to perform certain specified acts or kinds of acts on behalf of the principal”).) ¶ 55 Further, the Trinidad defendants contend that the purpose of the apparent authority doctrine is to “protect[] third parties who, in good faith, rely on their belief that an agency relationship exists between the apparent principal and agent.” See Villalpando, 181 P.3d at 363 . | 1 | 1 |
Villalpando v. Denver Health & Hospital Authoritygreen1 sentence2022See Willey, 876 P.2d at 1264 (explaining that a power of attorney is “a written document by which one party, as principal, appoints another as 28 agent (attorney-in-fact) and confers upon the latter the authority to perform certain specified acts or kinds of acts on behalf of the principal”).) ¶ 55 Further, the Trinidad defendants contend that the purpose of the apparent authority doctrine is to “protect[] third parties who, in good faith, rely on their belief that an agency relationship exists between the apparent principal and agent.” See Villalpando, 181 P.3d at 363 . | 1 | 1 |
Georgia v. Randolphgreen1 sentence2021Petersen v. People, 939 P.2d 824, 830-31 (Colo. 1997). ¶ 40 When officers seek consent to search a jointly occupied residence, “a physically present inhabitant’s express refusal of consent to a police search is dispositive as to him, regardless of the consent of a fellow occupant.” Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 122-23 (2006). | 1 | 1 |
Townsend v. Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhallgreen1 sentence2003The court of appeals applied the rule that, under the doctrine of apparent authority, a principal is liable for an agent's actions when the principal, through his words or conduct, causes a third party to believe that the principal authorized the agent's actions, See Townsend v. Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall, 196 F.3d 1140, 1146 (10th Cir.1999) (citing Nation v. City & County of Denver, 685 P.2d 227, 229 (Colo.App.1984)). 3 . | 1 | 1 |
Nation v. City and County of Denvergreen1 sentence2003The court of appeals applied the rule that, under the doctrine of apparent authority, a principal is liable for an agent's actions when the principal, through his words or conduct, causes a third party to believe that the principal authorized the agent's actions, See Townsend v. Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall, 196 F.3d 1140, 1146 (10th Cir.1999) (citing Nation v. City & County of Denver, 685 P.2d 227, 229 (Colo.App.1984)). 3 . | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Ronald Douglas Dearinggreen2 sentences1997See United States v. Dearing, 9 F.3d 1428, 1429-30 (9th Cir.1993). 1997See United States v. Dearing, 9 F.3d 1428, 1429-30 (9th Cir.1993). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Robin Elliott, Also Known as Terrence Wellsgreen2 sentences1997See United States v. Elliott, 50 F.3d 180, 186 (2d Cir.1995) (officer's erroneous belief that landlords are generally authorized to consent to a search of a tenant's premises), cert. denied, ____ U.S. ____, 116 S.Ct. 715 , 133 L.Ed.2d 669 (1996); United States v. Brown, 961 F.2d 1039, 1041 (2d Cir.1992) (officer incorrectly concluded that individual authorized to enter apartment to turn off appliances and lights could consent to search); United States v. Salinas-Cano, 959 F.2d 861, 865-66 (10th Cir.1992) (officer's mistaken belief that apartment tenant could conduct search of another's suitcas 1997See United States v. Elliott, 50 F.3d 180, 186 (2d Cir.1995) (officer’s erroneous belief that landlords are generally authorized to consent to a search of a tenant’s premises), ce rt. denied, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 715 , 133 L.Ed.2d 669 (1996); United States v. Brown, 961 F.2d 1039, 1041 (2d Cir.1992) (officer incorrectly concluded that individual authorized to enter apartment to turn off appliances and lights could consent to search); United States v. Salinas-Cano, 959 F.2d 861, 865-66 (10th Cir.1992) (officer’s mistaken belief that apartment tenant could conduct search of another’s suitcase in | 1 | 1 |
Ghazaleh v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1997See United States v. Elliott, 50 F.3d 180, 186 (2d Cir.1995) (officer's erroneous belief that landlords are generally authorized to consent to a search of a tenant's premises), cert. denied, ____ U.S. ____, 116 S.Ct. 715 , 133 L.Ed.2d 669 (1996); United States v. Brown, 961 F.2d 1039, 1041 (2d Cir.1992) (officer incorrectly concluded that individual authorized to enter apartment to turn off appliances and lights could consent to search); United States v. Salinas-Cano, 959 F.2d 861, 865-66 (10th Cir.1992) (officer's mistaken belief that apartment tenant could conduct search of another's suitcas 1997See United States v. Elliott, 50 F.3d 180, 186 (2d Cir.1995) (officer’s erroneous belief that landlords are generally authorized to consent to a search of a tenant’s premises), ce rt. denied, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 715 , 133 L.Ed.2d 669 (1996); United States v. Brown, 961 F.2d 1039, 1041 (2d Cir.1992) (officer incorrectly concluded that individual authorized to enter apartment to turn off appliances and lights could consent to search); United States v. Salinas-Cano, 959 F.2d 861, 865-66 (10th Cir.1992) (officer’s mistaken belief that apartment tenant could conduct search of another’s suitcase in | 1 | 1 |
Sterling v. Scottgreen2 sentences1997See United States v. Elliott, 50 F.3d 180, 186 (2d Cir.1995) (officer's erroneous belief that landlords are generally authorized to consent to a search of a tenant's premises), cert. denied, ____ U.S. ____, 116 S.Ct. 715 , 133 L.Ed.2d 669 (1996); United States v. Brown, 961 F.2d 1039, 1041 (2d Cir.1992) (officer incorrectly concluded that individual authorized to enter apartment to turn off appliances and lights could consent to search); United States v. Salinas-Cano, 959 F.2d 861, 865-66 (10th Cir.1992) (officer's mistaken belief that apartment tenant could conduct search of another's suitcas 1997See United States v. Elliott, 50 F.3d 180, 186 (2d Cir.1995) (officer’s erroneous belief that landlords are generally authorized to consent to a search of a tenant’s premises), ce rt. denied, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 715 , 133 L.Ed.2d 669 (1996); United States v. Brown, 961 F.2d 1039, 1041 (2d Cir.1992) (officer incorrectly concluded that individual authorized to enter apartment to turn off appliances and lights could consent to search); United States v. Salinas-Cano, 959 F.2d 861, 865-66 (10th Cir.1992) (officer’s mistaken belief that apartment tenant could conduct search of another’s suitcase in | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Maurice Whitfield, Jr.green2 sentences1997See United States v. Elliott, 50 F.3d 180, 186 (2d Cir.1995) (officer's erroneous belief that landlords are generally authorized to consent to a search of a tenant's premises), cert. denied, ____ U.S. ____, 116 S.Ct. 715 , 133 L.Ed.2d 669 (1996); United States v. Brown, 961 F.2d 1039, 1041 (2d Cir.1992) (officer incorrectly concluded that individual authorized to enter apartment to turn off appliances and lights could consent to search); United States v. Salinas-Cano, 959 F.2d 861, 865-66 (10th Cir.1992) (officer's mistaken belief that apartment tenant could conduct search of another's suitcas 1997See United States v. Elliott, 50 F.3d 180, 186 (2d Cir.1995) (officer’s erroneous belief that landlords are generally authorized to consent to a search of a tenant’s premises), ce rt. denied, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 715 , 133 L.Ed.2d 669 (1996); United States v. Brown, 961 F.2d 1039, 1041 (2d Cir.1992) (officer incorrectly concluded that individual authorized to enter apartment to turn off appliances and lights could consent to search); United States v. Salinas-Cano, 959 F.2d 861, 865-66 (10th Cir.1992) (officer’s mistaken belief that apartment tenant could conduct search of another’s suitcase in | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Wayne Browngreen2 sentences1997See United States v. Elliott, 50 F.3d 180, 186 (2d Cir.1995) (officer's erroneous belief that landlords are generally authorized to consent to a search of a tenant's premises), cert. denied, ____ U.S. ____, 116 S.Ct. 715 , 133 L.Ed.2d 669 (1996); United States v. Brown, 961 F.2d 1039, 1041 (2d Cir.1992) (officer incorrectly concluded that individual authorized to enter apartment to turn off appliances and lights could consent to search); United States v. Salinas-Cano, 959 F.2d 861, 865-66 (10th Cir.1992) (officer's mistaken belief that apartment tenant could conduct search of another's suitcas 1997See United States v. Elliott, 50 F.3d 180, 186 (2d Cir.1995) (officer’s erroneous belief that landlords are generally authorized to consent to a search of a tenant’s premises), ce rt. denied, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 715 , 133 L.Ed.2d 669 (1996); United States v. Brown, 961 F.2d 1039, 1041 (2d Cir.1992) (officer incorrectly concluded that individual authorized to enter apartment to turn off appliances and lights could consent to search); United States v. Salinas-Cano, 959 F.2d 861, 865-66 (10th Cir.1992) (officer’s mistaken belief that apartment tenant could conduct search of another’s suitcase in | 1 | 1 |
Kennedy v. Stategreen1 sentence1994See United States v. Salinas-Cano, 959 F.2d 861, 865 (10th Cir.1992) (where police knew that the apartment searched was rented by the consenter and that the suitcase therein belonged to defendant, the information known to the officers was insufficient to support a reasonable belief in the consenter’s authority, and the apparent authority exception to the warrant requirement is inapplicable); Kennedy v. State, 578 N.E.2d 633, 638 (Ind.1991) (search of gym bag constitutional under Rodriguez where police reasonably believed that consenting party had sufficient authority to consent to a search of | 1 | 1 |
Cowart v. Stategreen1 sentence1994See United States v. Salinas-Cano, 959 F.2d 861, 865 (10th Cir.1992) (where police knew that the apartment searched was rented by the consenter and that the suitcase therein belonged to defendant, the information known to the officers was insufficient to support a reasonable belief in the consenter’s authority, and the apparent authority exception to the warrant requirement is inapplicable); Kennedy v. State, 578 N.E.2d 633, 638 (Ind.1991) (search of gym bag constitutional under Rodriguez where police reasonably believed that consenting party had sufficient authority to consent to a search of | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. McKinstrey
green
1 sentence2013Petersen v. People, 939 P.2d 824 , 830 (Colo.1997). ¶ 37 When applying the apparent authority doctrine, the key question is "whether a police officer's belief that a third party had the authority to consent to a search is objectively reasonable." People v. McKinstrey, 852 P.2d 467 , 472 (Colo.1993). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Fisher
green
2 sentences2005Therefore, the apparent authority test as set forth in People v. Fisher, 657 P.2d 922 (Colo.1983), has not been satisfied. 2005Therefore, the apparent authority test as set forth in People v. Fisher, 657 P.2d 922 (Colo.1983), has not been satisfied. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Backstreet v. Hopp & Flesch, LLC
green
2 sentences2005Introduction We review the court of appeals' decision in Backstreet v. Hopp & Flesch L.L.C., 107 P.3d 1022 (Colo.App.2004), which held that a sheriff's department advisement to its employee, Raquel Backstreet, that any statements she made during an internal civil investigation could not be used against her in subsequent criminal proceedings, constituted a grant of use immunity under the apparent authority doctrine. [1] Id. at 1026 . 2005Introduction We review the court of appeals' decision in Backstreet v. Hopp & Flesch L.L.C., 107 P.3d 1022 (Colo.App.2004), which held that a sheriff's department advisement to its employee, Raquel Backstreet, that any statements she made during an internal civil investigation could not be used against her in subsequent criminal proceedings, constituted a grant of use immunity under the apparent authority doctrine. [1] Id. at 1026 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Nix v. State
green
1 sentence2002Nix v. State, supra, 621 P.2d at 1350 (quoting 2 W. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Inc. v. Hydrolevel Corp.
green
2 sentences1995Section 262 provides "[a] person who otherwise would be liable to another for the misrepresentations of one apparently acting for him is not relieved from liability by the fact that the servant or other agent acts entirely for his own purposes, unless the other has notice of this." In ASME, the Court stated "[b]ehind the principal's liability under an apparent authority theory, then, is `business expediencythe desire that third persons should be given reasonable protection in dealing with agents.'" ASME, 456 U.S. at 567 , 102 S.Ct. at 1943 (quoting the Restatement (Second) of Agency § 262 cmt 1995Section 262 provides "[a] person who otherwise would be liable to another for the misrepresentations of one apparently acting for him is not relieved from liability by the fact that the servant or other agent acts entirely for his own purposes, unless the other has notice of this." In ASME, the Court stated "[b]ehind the principal's liability under an apparent authority theory, then, is `business expediencythe desire that third persons should be given reasonable protection in dealing with agents.'" ASME, 456 U.S. at 567 , 102 S.Ct. at 1943 (quoting the Restatement (Second) of Agency § 262 cmt | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Dixon v. Department of Services for Children
green
1 sentence1994See United States v. Salinas-Cano, 959 F.2d 861, 865 (10th Cir.1992) (where police knew that the apartment searched was rented by the consenter and that the suitcase therein belonged to defendant, the information known to the officers was insufficient to support a reasonable belief in the consenter’s authority, and the apparent authority exception to the warrant requirement is inapplicable); Kennedy v. State, 578 N.E.2d 633, 638 (Ind.1991) (search of gym bag constitutional under Rodriguez where police reasonably believed that consenting party had sufficient authority to consent to a search of | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Commonwealth v. Quiles
green
2 sentences1993LaFave, Search and Seizure § 8.3, at 63 n. 98.3 (1993 Supp.) (stating that "[t]he apparent authority doctrine was well established in lower court decisions before Leon, which is quite properly never cited or relied upon in Rodriguez "); Commonwealth v. Quiles, 619 A.2d 291 , 297 n. 4 (Pa.Super.Ct.1993) (recognizing that jurisdictions that have rejected the Leon good-faith rule nevertheless have adopted the apparent authority doctrine in upholding warrantless searches based on third-party consent). 1993LaFave, Search and Seizure § 8.3, at 63 n. 98.3 (1993 Supp.) (stating that “[t]he apparent authority doctrine was well established in lower court decisions before Leon, which is quite properly never cited or relied upon in Rodriguez ”); Commonwealth v. Quites, 619 A.2d 291 , 297 n. 4 (Pa.Super.Ct.1993) (recognizing that jurisdictions that have rejected the Leon good-faith rule nevertheless have adopted the apparent authority doctrine in upholding warrantless searches based on third-party consent). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Russell v. First Am. Mtg. Co.
green
2 sentences1984Russell v. First American Mortgage Co., 39 Colo. App. 360 , 565 P.2d 972 (1977). 1984Russell v. First American Mortgage Co., 39 Colo. App. 360 , 565 P.2d 972 (1977). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.