prohibition inquiry in Colorado

7 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1919–2021 1 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.

Followed or applied (5)

Case	Followed	Cited
People v. Austingreen colo · 1966 · cited in 6 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1985–2021 2 sentences 2021However, for the reasons discussed below, we answer this question in the affirmative. ¶ 32 It is well established that the privilege against self- incrimination “is an option of a refusal, not a prohibition of inquiry,” and thus it “may not be asserted as a blanket claim in 17 advance of the questions actually propounded.” Ruch, ¶ 23, 379 P.3d at 313 (quoting People v. Austin, 159 Colo. 445, 450 , 412 P.2d 425, 427 (1966)). 2021However, for the reasons discussed below, we answer this question in the affirmative. ¶ 32 It is well established that the privilege against self- incrimination “is an option of a refusal, not a prohibition of inquiry,” and thus it “may not be asserted as a blanket claim in 17 advance of the questions actually propounded.” Ruch, ¶ 23, 379 P.3d at 313 (quoting People v. Austin, 159 Colo. 445, 450 , 412 P.2d 425, 427 (1966)).	5	6
Feigin v. Zinngreen coloctapp · 1990 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016Id. (quoting Cunningham, 481 U.S. at 805, 97 S.Ct. 2132 ). 123 The privilege against self-inerim-ination, however, "is an option of refusal, not a prohibition of inquiry." People v. Austin, 159 Colo, 445, 412 P.2d 425, 427 (1966); ace-cord Feigin v. Zinn, 789 P.2d 478, 480 (Colo.App.1990). 2016Id. (quoting Cunningham, 431 U.S. at 805 ). ¶23 The privilege against self-incrimination, however, “is an option of refusal, not a prohibition of inquiry.” People v. Austin, 412 P.2d 425, 427 (Colo. 1966); accord Feigin v. Zinn, 789 P.2d 478, 480 (Colo. App. 1990).	2	2
People ex rel. I.O.green coloctapp · 1985 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2011–2021 2 sentences 2021Rather, as the Colorado Supreme Court has recognized, “[t]he proper procedure” when invoking the privilege “is to wait until a question which tends to be incriminating has been asked and then decline to answer.” Austin, 159 Colo. at 450 , 412 P.2d at 427 ; accord People in Interest of I.O., 713 P.2d 396, 397 (Colo. App. 1985). 2011"The privilege against self-incrimination may not be asserted in advance of questions actually propounded; it is an option of refusal, not a prohibition of inquiry." Id.	1	2
Lefkowitz v. Cunninghamgreen scotus · 1977 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016Id. (quoting Cunningham, 431 U.S. at 805 ). ¶23 The privilege against self-incrimination, however, “is an option of refusal, not a prohibition of inquiry.” People v. Austin, 412 P.2d 425, 427 (Colo. 1966); accord Feigin v. Zinn, 789 P.2d 478, 480 (Colo. App. 1990). 2016Id. (quoting Cunningham, 431 U.S. at 805 ). ¶23 The privilege against self-incrimination, however, “is an option of refusal, not a prohibition of inquiry.” People v. Austin, 412 P.2d 425, 427 (Colo. 1966); accord Feigin v. Zinn, 789 P.2d 478, 480 (Colo. App. 1990).	1	2
United States v. Rivas-Maciasgreen ca10 · 2008 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 1 sentence 2015Smith, 275 P.3d at 720 (citing United States v. Rivas-Macias, 537 F.3d 1271, 1278 (10th Cir.2008); Coit, 50 P.3d at 938 ). ¶ 83 The privilege “is an option of refusal, not a prohibition of inquiry.” People v. Austin, 159 Colo. 445, 450 , 412 P.2d 425, 427 (1966).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

Case	Cited	Years
People v. Ruch green colo · 2016 1 sentence 2021However, for the reasons discussed below, we answer this question in the affirmative. ¶ 32 It is well established that the privilege against self- incrimination “is an option of a refusal, not a prohibition of inquiry,” and thus it “may not be asserted as a blanket claim in 17 advance of the questions actually propounded.” Ruch, ¶ 23, 379 P.3d at 313 (quoting People v. Austin, 159 Colo. 445, 450 , 412 P.2d 425, 427 (1966)).	1	2021–2021
People v. Coit green coloctapp · 2002 1 sentence 2015Smith, 275 P.3d at 720 (citing United States v. Rivas-Macias, 537 F.3d 1271, 1278 (10th Cir.2008); Coit, 50 P.3d at 938 ). ¶ 83 The privilege “is an option of refusal, not a prohibition of inquiry.” People v. Austin, 159 Colo. 445, 450 , 412 P.2d 425, 427 (1966).	1	2015–2015
People v. Smith green coloctapp · 2011 1 sentence 2015Smith, 275 P.3d at 720 (citing United States v. Rivas-Macias, 537 F.3d 1271, 1278 (10th Cir.2008); Coit, 50 P.3d at 938 ). ¶ 83 The privilege “is an option of refusal, not a prohibition of inquiry.” People v. Austin, 159 Colo. 445, 450 , 412 P.2d 425, 427 (1966).	1	2015–2015
Smith v. Smith neutral colo · 1896 1 sentence 1919Under our law, the husband had a perfect right to alienate this property during his lifetime, subject to the prohibition of the rule laid down in Smith v. Smith, 22 Colo. 480 , 46 Pac. 128 , 34 L.	1	1919–1919

Where else courts name it

OH 43 (1998–2025) NY 19 (1891–2024) WA 17 (2003–2024) CA 16 (1936–2026) TX 13 (1919–2025) LA 12 (1906–2016) WV 8 (1993–2013) MA 7 (1975–2010) AL 7 (1897–2015) CO 7 (1919–2021) IA 7 (1904–2020) MD 6 (1968–2020) MO 5 (1898–2004) IN 5 (1918–2003) OK 5 (1973–2001) MI 5 (1932–2017) IL 5 (1939–2025) PA 4 (1927–1987) NC 3 (1904–2024) AZ 3 (1955–2013) NJ 3 (1883–1995) GA 3 (1985–1996) NH 3 (1971–1985) FL 2 (1989–2017)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check