Aguilar-Spinelli test in Colorado

43 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2021 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 (12)

Case	Followed	Cited
People v. Pannebakergreen colo · 1986 · cited in 5 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1987–1994 2 sentences 1990The United States Supreme Court reversed, rejecting the Aguilar-Spinelli test for reasons stated in the text. [4] In Pannebaker, 714 P.2d 904 , a police detective's affidavit alleged that an informant told him that John Pannebaker was growing marihuana in two specifically described residences in Boulder County. 1990The United States Supreme Court reversed, rejecting the Aguilar-Spinelli test for reasons stated in the text. [4] In Pannebaker, 714 P.2d 904 , a police detective's affidavit alleged that an informant told him that John Pannebaker was growing marihuana in two specifically described residences in Boulder County.	2	5
Spinelli v. United Statesred scotus · 1969 · cited in 18 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1973–1991 2 sentences 1984A. The first step in resolving the probable cause issue requires a determination as to whether the facts provided by the unnamed, first-time informant were reliable. 598 We note that the trial court employed the two-pronged test formulated in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), in analyzing the evidence presented. 8 The first prong of the Aguilar-Spinelli test is commonly referred to as the “basis of knowledge” requirement. 1984A. The first step in resolving the probable cause issue requires a determination as to whether the facts provided by the unnamed, first-time informant were reliable. 598 We note that the trial court employed the two-pronged test formulated in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), in analyzing the evidence presented. 8 The first prong of the Aguilar-Spinelli test is commonly referred to as the “basis of knowledge” requirement.	1	18
Aguilar v. Texasred scotus · 1964 · cited in 17 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1973–1994 2 sentences 1984A. The first step in resolving the probable cause issue requires a determination as to whether the facts provided by the unnamed, first-time informant were reliable. 598 We note that the trial court employed the two-pronged test formulated in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), in analyzing the evidence presented. 8 The first prong of the Aguilar-Spinelli test is commonly referred to as the “basis of knowledge” requirement. 1984A. The first step in resolving the probable cause issue requires a determination as to whether the facts provided by the unnamed, first-time informant were reliable. 598 We note that the trial court employed the two-pronged test formulated in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), in analyzing the evidence presented. 8 The first prong of the Aguilar-Spinelli test is commonly referred to as the “basis of knowledge” requirement.	1	17
Illinois v. Gatesgreen scotus · 1983 · cited in 12 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1983–2021 2 sentences 2021Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213 , 238-39 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 ( 1983 ) ( abandoning the rigid, two-pronged Aguilar-Spinelli test in favor of the totality of the circumstances approach ) . 2021Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213 , 238-39 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 ( 1983 ) ( abandoning the rigid, two-pronged Aguilar-Spinelli test in favor of the totality of the circumstances approach ) .	1	12
People v. Montoyagreen colo · 1975 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1976–1981 2 sentences 1981See People v. Montoya, 189 Colo. 106 , 538 P.2d 1332 (1975); People v. Montoya, Colo.App., 616 P.2d 156 (1980); People v. MacDonald, supra . 1981See People v. Montoya, 189 Colo. 106 , 538 P.2d 1332 (1975); People v. Montoya, Colo.App., 616 P.2d 156 (1980); People v. MacDonald, supra .	1	2
People v. Kinggreen colo · 1975 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1977–1980 2 sentences 1980People v. Williams, 189 Colo. 311 , 541 P.2d 76 (1975); People v. King, 189 Colo. 454 , 541 P.2d 901 (1975). 1980People v. Williams, 189 Colo. 311 , 541 P.2d 76 (1975); People v. King, 189 Colo. 454 , 541 P.2d 901 (1975).	1	2
Hill v. Millergreen colo · 1978 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 1 sentence 2001Conversely, even if enough information were not known to fully credit an informant as being a "citizen-informant," whose veracity would automatically be accepted, see People v. Edmonds, 195 Colo. 358, 364 , 578 P.2d 655, 661 (1978) (finding disclosure of identity and place of employment sufficient to satisfy "first prong" of Aguilar-Spinelli test), a detailed description of the alleged wrongdoing, along with a statement that the event was observed firsthand, would entitle the information to more reliability than might otherwise be the case.	1	1
People v. Paquingreen colo · 1991 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994 2 sentences 1994See People v. Paquin, 811 P.2d 394, 397-98 (Colo.1991); People v. Pannebaker, 714 P.2d 904, 907 (Colo.1986). 1994See People v. Paquin, 811 P.2d 394, 397-98 (Colo.1991); People v. Pannebaker, 714 P.2d 904, 907 (Colo.1986).	1	1
People v. Turcotte-Schaeffergreen colo · 1993 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994 2 sentences 1994People v. Turcotte-Schaeffer, 843 P.2d 658, 660 (Colo.1993); People v. Pannebaker, 714 P.2d 904, 907 (Colo.1986) (adopting the Gates test in construing the Search and Seizure Clause of the Colorado Constitution). 1994People v. Turcotte-Schaeffer, 843 P.2d 658, 660 (Colo.1993); People v. Pannebaker, 714 P.2d 904, 907 (Colo.1986) (adopting the Gates test in construing the Search and Seizure Clause of the Colorado Constitution).	1	1
People v. Gradygreen colo · 1988 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993 2 sentences 1993Gates, 462 U.S. at 230 , 103 S.Ct. at 2328 ; People v. Grady, 755 P.2d 1211, 1215 (Colo.1988). 1993Gates, 462 U.S. at 230 , 103 S.Ct. at 2328 ; People v. Grady, 755 P.2d 1211, 1215 (Colo.1988).	1	1
People v. Peltzgreen coloctapp · 1985 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986 1 sentence 1986People v. Peltz, 697 P.2d at 769 (Colo.App.1984).	1	1
People v. Massongreen colo · 1974 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1975–1975	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 (28)

Case	Cited	Years
People v. Peschong green colo · 1973 2 sentences 1982This is demonstrated by a comparison of the above cases with People v. Peschong, 181 Colo. 29 , 506 P.2d 1232 (1973), where we held that a statement by a police officer-af-fiant that he had known the informant “for approximately 2 years, and said informant has given reliable information on at least 3 prior occasions,” was insufficiently specific to satisfy the second prong of the Aguilar-Spinelli test. 181 Colo. at 31, 506 P.2d at 1233 . 1982This is demonstrated by a comparison of the above cases with People v. Peschong, 181 Colo. 29 , 506 P.2d 1232 (1973), where we held that a statement by a police officer-af-fiant that he had known the informant “for approximately 2 years, and said informant has given reliable information on at least 3 prior occasions,” was insufficiently specific to satisfy the second prong of the Aguilar-Spinelli test. 181 Colo. at 31, 506 P.2d at 1233 .	4	1973–1982
People v. Brethauer green colo · 1971 2 sentences 1977See, e.g., People v. King, 189 Colo. 454 , 541 P.2d 901 (1975); People v. Brethauer, 174 Colo. 29 , 482 P.2d 369 (1971). 1977See, e.g., People v. King, 189 Colo. 454 , 541 P.2d 901 (1975); People v. Brethauer, 174 Colo. 29 , 482 P.2d 369 (1971).	4	1973–1977
People v. Glaubman green colo · 1971 2 sentences 1975Because the informant’s identity is set forth in the affidavit, it is suggested that the Aguilar-Spinelli test is not fully applicable and that the reliability of this informant should be measured on the basis of the citizen-informer rule announced and adopted in People v. Glaubman, 175 Colo. 41 , 485 P.2d 711 (1971). 1975Because the informant’s identity is set forth in the affidavit, it is suggested that the Aguilar-Spinelli test is not fully applicable and that the reliability of this informant should be measured on the basis of the citizen-informer rule announced and adopted in People v. Glaubman, 175 Colo. 41 , 485 P.2d 711 (1971).	3	1975–1982
People v. Clark green colo · 1971 2 sentences 1973People v. Peschong, announced on February 26, 1973, Colo., 506 P.2d 1232 ; People v. Clark, 175 Colo. 446 , 488 P.2d 565 (1971); and People v. MacDonald, 173 Colo. 470 , 480 P.2d 555 (1971). 1259 The People argue that the first prong of the Aguilar-Spinelli test was satisfied by the above-quoted sentence in the affidavit: (1) because the plain meaning of the sentence is that the informant personally saw marijuana in both apartments; or (2) because the two apartments were in reality one commonly occupied residence. 1973People v. Peschong, announced on February 26, 1973, Colo., 506 P.2d 1232 ; People v. Clark, 175 Colo. 446 , 488 P.2d 565 (1971); and People v. MacDonald, 173 Colo. 470 , 480 P.2d 555 (1971). 1259 The People argue that the first prong of the Aguilar-Spinelli test was satisfied by the above-quoted sentence in the affidavit: (1) because the plain meaning of the sentence is that the informant personally saw marijuana in both apartments; or (2) because the two apartments were in reality one commonly occupied residence.	3	1973–1982
People v. Williams green colo · 1975 2 sentences 1975In People v. Williams, 189 Colo. 311 , 541 P.2d 76 , we held' that the “basis of knowledge” prong of the Aguilar-Spinelli test may be satisfied even though there is no showing as to how the informant came upon the information conveyed. 1975In People v. Williams, 189 Colo. 311 , 541 P.2d 76 , we held' that the “basis of knowledge” prong of the Aguilar-Spinelli test may be satisfied even though there is no showing as to how the informant came upon the information conveyed.	3	1975–1980
People v. Arnold green colo · 1974 2 sentences 1975The Aguilar-Spinelli test by which affidavits in support of search warrants must be judged has been outlined in numerous cases, one of the most recent being People v. Arnold, 186 Colo. 372 , 527 P.2d 806 (1974). 1975The Aguilar-Spinelli test by which affidavits in support of search warrants must be judged has been outlined in numerous cases, one of the most recent being People v. Arnold, 186 Colo. 372 , 527 P.2d 806 (1974).	3	1975–1975
People v. MacDonald green colo · 1971 2 sentences 1973People v. Peschong, announced on February 26, 1973, Colo., 506 P.2d 1232 ; People v. Clark, 175 Colo. 446 , 488 P.2d 565 (1971); and People v. MacDonald, 173 Colo. 470 , 480 P.2d 555 (1971). 1259 The People argue that the first prong of the Aguilar-Spinelli test was satisfied by the above-quoted sentence in the affidavit: (1) because the plain meaning of the sentence is that the informant personally saw marijuana in both apartments; or (2) because the two apartments were in reality one commonly occupied residence. 1973People v. Peschong, announced on February 26, 1973, Colo., 506 P.2d 1232 ; People v. Clark, 175 Colo. 446 , 488 P.2d 565 (1971); and People v. MacDonald, 173 Colo. 470 , 480 P.2d 555 (1971). 1259 The People argue that the first prong of the Aguilar-Spinelli test was satisfied by the above-quoted sentence in the affidavit: (1) because the plain meaning of the sentence is that the informant personally saw marijuana in both apartments; or (2) because the two apartments were in reality one commonly occupied residence.	3	1973–1975
People v. Peppers green colo · 1970 2 sentences 1978People v. Peppers, 172 Colo. 556 , 475 P.2d 337 (1970), supports the finding that the affidavit in this case is sufficient to establish the element of reliability. 1978People v. Peppers, 172 Colo. 556 , 475 P.2d 337 (1970), supports the finding that the affidavit in this case is sufficient to establish the element of reliability.	2	1978–1978
People v. Baird green colo · 1973 2 sentences 1974The second prong of the Aguilar-Spinelli test is satisfied by the statement in the affidavit that the information was received from "a previously reliable confidential informant whose information has resulted in narcotics arrest and seizures on at least two past occasions . . ." The statement is very similar to that approved in Ward, supra, where the information supplied by the informant had "proven reliable `on at least 2 recent past occasions which resulted in narcotics arrests and seizures . . ..'" See also Baird, supra . 1974The second prong of the Aguilar-Spinelli test is satisfied by the statement in the affidavit that the information was received from "a previously reliable confidential informant whose information has resulted in narcotics arrest and seizures on at least two past occasions . . ." The statement is very similar to that approved in Ward, supra, where the information supplied by the informant had "proven reliable `on at least 2 recent past occasions which resulted in narcotics arrests and seizures . . ..'" See also Baird, supra .	2	1974–1974
People v. Edmonds green colo · 1978 1 sentence 2001Conversely, even if enough information were not known to fully credit an informant as being a "citizen-informant," whose veracity would automatically be accepted, see People v. Edmonds, 195 Colo. 358, 364 , 578 P.2d 655, 661 (1978) (finding disclosure of identity and place of employment sufficient to satisfy "first prong" of Aguilar-Spinelli test), a detailed description of the alleged wrongdoing, along with a statement that the event was observed firsthand, would entitle the information to more reliability than might otherwise be the case.	1	2001–2001
Sibron v. New York green scotus · 1968 2 sentences 1994I disagree. [2] Although these factors are part of the Gates test as well as the Aguilar-Spinelli test, and although the majority opinion makes reference to Gates throughout its analysis, I do not believe that the United States Supreme Court in Gates, nor this court in Pannebaker , intended the kind of ritualistic application of these factors that is found in the majority opinion. [3] The majority cites Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 , 88 S.Ct. 1889 , 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968), for the proposition that police may not establish probable cause based solely on the fact that the defendant has had con 1994I disagree. [2] Although these factors are part of the Gates test as well as the Aguilar-Spinelli test, and although the majority opinion makes reference to Gates throughout its analysis, I do not believe that the United States Supreme Court in Gates, nor this court in Pannebaker , intended the kind of ritualistic application of these factors that is found in the majority opinion. [3] The majority cites Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 , 88 S.Ct. 1889 , 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968), for the proposition that police may not establish probable cause based solely on the fact that the defendant has had con	1	1994–1994
People v. Ball green colo · 1982 2 sentences 1983Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); People v. Conwell, 649 P.2d 1099 (Colo.1982); People v. Ball, 639 P.2d 1078 (Colo.1982); People v. Dailey, 639 P.2d 1068 (Colo.1982), People v. Stoppel, 637 P.2d 384 (Colo.1981). 1983Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); People v. Conwell, 649 P.2d 1099 (Colo.1982); People v. Ball, 639 P.2d 1078 (Colo.1982); People v. Dailey, 639 P.2d 1068 (Colo.1982), People v. Stoppel, 637 P.2d 384 (Colo.1981).	1	1983–1983
People v. Dailey green colo · 1982 2 sentences 1983Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); People v. Conwell, 649 P.2d 1099 (Colo.1982); People v. Ball, 639 P.2d 1078 (Colo.1982); People v. Dailey, 639 P.2d 1068 (Colo.1982), People v. Stoppel, 637 P.2d 384 (Colo.1981). 1983Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); People v. Conwell, 649 P.2d 1099 (Colo.1982); People v. Ball, 639 P.2d 1078 (Colo.1982); People v. Dailey, 639 P.2d 1068 (Colo.1982), People v. Stoppel, 637 P.2d 384 (Colo.1981).	1	1983–1983
People v. Stoppel green colo · 1981 2 sentences 1983Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); People v. Conwell, 649 P.2d 1099 (Colo.1982); People v. Ball, 639 P.2d 1078 (Colo.1982); People v. Dailey, 639 P.2d 1068 (Colo.1982), People v. Stoppel, 637 P.2d 384 (Colo.1981). 1983Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); People v. Conwell, 649 P.2d 1099 (Colo.1982); People v. Ball, 639 P.2d 1078 (Colo.1982); People v. Dailey, 639 P.2d 1068 (Colo.1982), People v. Stoppel, 637 P.2d 384 (Colo.1981).	1	1983–1983
People v. Glasener green colo · 1976 2 sentences 1983People v. Glasener, 191 Colo. 114 , 550 P.2d 851 (1976). 1983People v. Glasener, 191 Colo. 114 , 550 P.2d 851 (1976).	1	1983–1983
People v. Conwell green colo · 1982 2 sentences 1983Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); People v. Conwell, 649 P.2d 1099 (Colo.1982); People v. Ball, 639 P.2d 1078 (Colo.1982); People v. Dailey, 639 P.2d 1068 (Colo.1982), People v. Stoppel, 637 P.2d 384 (Colo.1981). 1983Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); People v. Conwell, 649 P.2d 1099 (Colo.1982); People v. Ball, 639 P.2d 1078 (Colo.1982); People v. Dailey, 639 P.2d 1068 (Colo.1982), People v. Stoppel, 637 P.2d 384 (Colo.1981).	1	1983–1983
People v. Saars green colo · 1978 2 sentences 1982People v. Saars, 196 Colo. 294 , 584 P.2d 622 (1978); People v. Glaubman, 175 Colo. 41 , 485 P.2d 711 (1971). 1982People v. Saars, 196 Colo. 294 , 584 P.2d 622 (1978); People v. Glaubman, 175 Colo. 41 , 485 P.2d 711 (1971).	1	1982–1982
People v. Goggin green colo · 1972	1	1981–1981
People v. Padilla green colo · 1973 2 sentences 1981See generally Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969); People v. Padilla, 182 Colo. 101 , 511 P.2d 480 (1973); People v. Goggin, 177 Colo. 19 , 492 P.2d 618 (1972). 1981See generally Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969); People v. Padilla, 182 Colo. 101 , 511 P.2d 480 (1973); People v. Goggin, 177 Colo. 19 , 492 P.2d 618 (1972).	1	1981–1981
People v. Montoya green coloctapp · 1980 2 sentences 1981See People v. Montoya, 189 Colo. 106 , 538 P.2d 1332 (1975); People v. Montoya, Colo.App., 616 P.2d 156 (1980); People v. MacDonald, supra . 1981See People v. Montoya, 189 Colo. 106 , 538 P.2d 1332 (1975); People v. Montoya, Colo.App., 616 P.2d 156 (1980); People v. MacDonald, supra .	1	1981–1981
People v. Lucero neutral colo · 1978	1	1980–1980
People v. Gonzales green colo · 1974	1	1980–1980
People v. Hubbard green colo · 1974	1	1976–1976
Giordenello v. United States green scotus · 1958	1	1974–1974
Jones v. United States red scotus · 1960	1	1974–1974
People v. Ward green colo · 1973	1	1974–1974
People v. Alarid green colo · 1971	1	1973–1973
United States v. Harris green scotus · 1971	1	1973–1973

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CO § Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-3-308 (5) CO § Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-4-102 (3) CO § Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-12-102 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

NY 312 (1975–2025) MA 119 (1985–2025) WA 87 (1973–2023) TN 86 (1991–2025) CT 44 (1984–2021) CO 43 (1973–2021) TX 35 (1982–2012) NM 29 (1989–2025) PA 29 (1973–2018) AK 21 (1985–2016) IL 17 (1977–2006) GA 15 (1975–1992) ID 15 (1980–2012) MI 13 (1982–2021) AL 12 (1982–2004) CA 10 (1983–2017) VA 9 (1972–2011) UT 8 (1984–2003) FL 8 (1978–1995) MD 8 (1974–2007) VT 7 (1989–2018) OH 7 (1988–2025) DC 6 (1977–2017) MT 6 (1978–2020) NC 5 (1983–2008) OK 5 (1973–1991) SD 4 (1976–2006) OR 3 (1985–2020) RI 3 (1984–2001) MS 3 (1985–2007) LA 3 (1983–1983) DE 2 (2008–2018) NH 2 (1985–1986) WY 2 (1992–1993) ND 2 (1985–1988) IN 2 (1988–1988) MN 2 (1978–1985) IA 2 (1990–2022) NJ 2 (1987–1991)

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