evidence at the suppression hearing (Colorado) · Go Syfert
← Colorado issues

evidence at the suppression hearing in Colorado

6 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2016 0 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 (6)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Allisongreen
colo · 2004 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015People v. Allison , 86 P.3d 421, 426 (Colo. 2004); People v. Hebert , 46 P.3d 473, 478 (Colo. 2002). ¶29       In this case, the evidence at the suppression hearing did not support a finding of consent. 2 However, we conclude, although for different reasons than those identified by the trial court, that the warrantless entry was justified under the exigent circumstances exception.

2015People v. Allison, 86 P.3d 421, 426 (Colo.2004); People v. Hebert, 46 P.3d 473, 478 (Colo.2002). € 29 In this case, the evidence at the suppression hearing did not support a finding of consent. 2 However, we conclude, although for different reasons than those identified by the trial court, that the warrantless entry was justified under the exigent cireumstances exception.

22
People v. Hebertgreen
colo · 2002 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015People v. Allison , 86 P.3d 421, 426 (Colo. 2004); People v. Hebert , 46 P.3d 473, 478 (Colo. 2002). ¶29       In this case, the evidence at the suppression hearing did not support a finding of consent. 2 However, we conclude, although for different reasons than those identified by the trial court, that the warrantless entry was justified under the exigent circumstances exception.

2015People v. Allison, 86 P.3d 421, 426 (Colo.2004); People v. Hebert, 46 P.3d 473, 478 (Colo.2002). € 29 In this case, the evidence at the suppression hearing did not support a finding of consent. 2 However, we conclude, although for different reasons than those identified by the trial court, that the warrantless entry was justified under the exigent cireumstances exception.

22
People v. Mathenygreen
colo · 2002 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
1 sentence

2016People v. Matheny, 46 P.3d 453, 458 (Colo. 2002).

11
United States v. Charles Richard Tedfordgreen
ca5 · 1989 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993
1 sentence

1993See United States v. Evans, 937 F.2d 1534, 1536-37 (10th Cir.1991); see also United States v. Harrison, 918 F.2d 469, 473 (5th Cir.1990) (reasonableness of investigatory stop is a question of law subject to de novo review); United States v. Tedford, 875 F.2d 446, 448 (5th Cir.1989) (objective reasonable reliance on a search warrant is a question of law subject to de novo review). [7] The evidence at the suppression hearing established that Officer Husmann knew that Drumm was the caretaker of the premises, was the only permanent resident on the property, and possessed the key to the padlock on

11
United States v. Jack Eugene Harrison, United States of America v. Gary Don Jetergreen
ca5 · 1990 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993
1 sentence

1993See United States v. Evans, 937 F.2d 1534, 1536-37 (10th Cir.1991); see also United States v. Harrison, 918 F.2d 469, 473 (5th Cir.1990) (reasonableness of investigatory stop is a question of law subject to de novo review); United States v. Tedford, 875 F.2d 446, 448 (5th Cir.1989) (objective reasonable reliance on a search warrant is a question of law subject to de novo review). [7] The evidence at the suppression hearing established that Officer Husmann knew that Drumm was the caretaker of the premises, was the only permanent resident on the property, and possessed the key to the padlock on

11
United States v. Daryl Lee Evansgreen
ca10 · 1991 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993
1 sentence

1993See United States v. Evans, 937 F.2d 1534, 1536-37 (10th Cir.1991); see also United States v. Harrison, 918 F.2d 469, 473 (5th Cir.1990) (reasonableness of investigatory stop is a question of law subject to de novo review); United States v. Tedford, 875 F.2d 446, 448 (5th Cir.1989) (objective reasonable reliance on a search warrant is a question of law subject to de novo review). [7] The evidence at the suppression hearing established that Officer Husmann knew that Drumm was the caretaker of the premises, was the only permanent resident on the property, and possessed the key to the padlock on

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Ingram green
colo · 1984
2 sentences

1986When this case was originally before the court in People v. Ingram, 684 P.2d 243 (Colo.1984), I joined the dissenting opinion of Justice Neighbors on the basis that the monitoring and interception of the telephone communications by the Aurora police officers was in violation of the wiretap order because: (1) the wiretap order expressly limited the monitoring and interception to the Intelligence Division of the Lakewood Department of Public Safety; and (2) the evidence at the suppression hearing supported the district court's determination that the Aurora police officers, in intercepting and mo

1986When this case was originally b'efore the court in People v. Ingram, 684 P.2d 243 (Colo.1984), I joined the dissenting opinion of Justice Neighbors on the basis that the monitoring and interception of the telephone communications by the Aurora police officers was in violation of the wiretap order because: (1) the wiretap order expressly limited the monitoring and interception to the Intelligence Division of the Lakewood Department of Public Safety; and (2) the evidence at the suppression hearing supported the district court’s determination that the Aurora police officers, in intercepting and m

11986–1986
In re Disbarment of Cohen green
scotus · 1983
2 sentences

1984Colorado v. Quintero, ___ U.S. ___, 103 S.Ct. 3535 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1386 , cert. dismissed, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 543 , 78 L.Ed.2d 719 (1983). [4] The only issue raised *995 on this appeal is whether, constitutional issues aside, the evidence at the suppression hearing established that Officer Sigler's arrest of the defendant and his subsequent seizure of cocaine from the defendant's person resulted from a "good faith mistake" or a "technical violation" as these terms are defined in section 16-3-308(2).

1984Colorado v. Quintero, ___ U.S. ___, 103 S.Ct. 3535 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1386 , cert. dismissed, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 543 , 78 L.Ed.2d 719 (1983). [4] The only issue raised *995 on this appeal is whether, constitutional issues aside, the evidence at the suppression hearing established that Officer Sigler's arrest of the defendant and his subsequent seizure of cocaine from the defendant's person resulted from a "good faith mistake" or a "technical violation" as these terms are defined in section 16-3-308(2).

11984–1984
United States v. Weber Aircraft Corp. green
scotus · 1983
2 sentences

1984Colorado v. Quintero, ___ U.S. ___, 103 S.Ct. 3535 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1386 , cert. dismissed, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 543 , 78 L.Ed.2d 719 (1983). [4] The only issue raised *995 on this appeal is whether, constitutional issues aside, the evidence at the suppression hearing established that Officer Sigler's arrest of the defendant and his subsequent seizure of cocaine from the defendant's person resulted from a "good faith mistake" or a "technical violation" as these terms are defined in section 16-3-308(2).

1984Colorado v. Quintero, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 3535 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1386 , cert. dismissed, — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 543 , 78 L.Ed.2d 719 (1983). 4 The only issue raised on this appeal is whether, constitutional issues aside, the evidence at the suppression hearing established that Officer Si-gler’s arrest of the defendant and his subsequent seizure of cocaine from the defendant’s person resulted from a “good faith mistake” or a “technical violation” as these terms are defined in section 16-3-308(2).

11984–1984
Heckler v. Ringer green
scotus · 1983
2 sentences

1984Colorado v. Quintero, ___ U.S. ___, 103 S.Ct. 3535 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1386 , cert. dismissed, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 543 , 78 L.Ed.2d 719 (1983). [4] The only issue raised *995 on this appeal is whether, constitutional issues aside, the evidence at the suppression hearing established that Officer Sigler's arrest of the defendant and his subsequent seizure of cocaine from the defendant's person resulted from a "good faith mistake" or a "technical violation" as these terms are defined in section 16-3-308(2).

1984Colorado v. Quintero, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 3535 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1386 , cert. dismissed, — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 543 , 78 L.Ed.2d 719 (1983). 4 The only issue raised on this appeal is whether, constitutional issues aside, the evidence at the suppression hearing established that Officer Si-gler’s arrest of the defendant and his subsequent seizure of cocaine from the defendant’s person resulted from a “good faith mistake” or a “technical violation” as these terms are defined in section 16-3-308(2).

11984–1984

Where else courts name it

NY 227 (1968–2025) TX 29 (1987–2024) NC 24 (1980–2026) OH 16 (1992–2022) PA 15 (1984–2025) GA 13 (1986–2021) IL 12 (1979–2026) MA 11 (1981–2026) DC 10 (1983–2024) IA 9 (2005–2024) AZ 9 (2014–2021) VA 7 (1988–2025) MO 7 (1992–2023) CO 6 (1984–2016) ME 6 (1972–2022) FL 6 (1988–2024) AL 6 (1989–2007) WI 6 (1985–2024) TN 5 (1983–2024) CA 5 (1972–2022) NM 5 (1978–2007) NJ 4 (1975–2015) CT 3 (2000–2005) IN 2 (1982–1989) MD 2 (2018–2023) WY 2 (2000–2005) MT 2 (2017–2024) WA 2 (1978–2015)

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