Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Allisongreen2 sentences2015People 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. 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. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Hebertgreen2 sentences2015People 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. 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. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Mathenygreen1 sentence2016People v. Matheny, 46 P.3d 453, 458 (Colo. 2002). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Charles Richard Tedfordgreen1 sentence1993See 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 | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Jack Eugene Harrison, United States of America v. Gary Don Jetergreen1 sentence1993See 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 | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Daryl Lee Evansgreen1 sentence1993See 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 | 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. Ingram
green
2 sentences1986When 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 | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Colorado v. Quintero
neutral
2 sentences1984Colorado 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). 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). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Colorado v. Quintero
neutral
2 sentences1984Colorado 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). 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). | 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.