(1) A search warrant shall issue only on affidavit sworn to or affirmed before the judge and relating facts sufficient to:
(a) Identify or describe, as nearly as may be, the premises, person, place, or thing to be searched;
(b) Identify or describe, as nearly as may be, the property to be searched for, seized, or inspected;
(c) Establish the grounds for issuance of the warrant or probable cause to believe that such grounds exist; and
(d) Establish probable cause to believe that the property to be searched for, seized, or inspected is located at, in, or upon the premises, person, place, or thing to be searched.
(2) The affidavit required by this section may include sworn testimony reduced to writing and signed under oath by the witness giving the testimony before issuance of the warrant. A copy of the affidavit and a copy of the transcript of testimony taken in support of the request for a search warrant shall be attached to the search warrant filed with the court.
(3) Procedures governing application for and issuance of search warrants consistent with this section may be established by rule of the supreme court.
(4) A no-knock search warrant shall be issued only if the affidavit for such warrant:
(a) Complies with the provisions of subsections (1), (2), and (3) of this section; (a.5) Establishes that a no-knock entry is necessary because of a credible threat to the life of any person, including the peace officers executing the warrant;
(b) Specifically requests the issuance of a no-knock search warrant; and
(c) Has been reviewed and approved for legal sufficiency and signed by a district attorney pursuant to section 20-1-106.1 (1)(b), C.R.S. Such review and approval may take place as allowed by statute or court rule or by means of facsimile transmission, telephonic transmission, or other electronic transfer.
(5) If the grounds for the issuance of a no-knock search warrant are established by a confidential informant, the affidavit for such warrant shall contain a statement by the affiant concerning when such grounds became known or were verified by the affiant. The statement shall not identify the confidential informant.
(6) For the purposes of this section, unless the context otherwise requires, "no-knock search warrant" means a search warrant that does not require compliance with section 16-3-305 (7)(d).
Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 200, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-3-303. L. 2000: (4), (5), and (6) added, p. 650, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2001: (4)(c) amended, p. 1270, § 19, effective June 5. L. 2023: (4)(a.5) added and (6) amended, (SB 23-254), ch. 395, p. 2358, § 1, effective June 6.
Notes of Decisions
People v. Pannebaker, 714 P.2d 904 (Colo. 1986).
· cites it 4× “The issue before us is whether the Hall affidavit, which incorporated the Subia affidavit, contained sufficient information within its four corners to establish probable cause for the issuance of a warrant under the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution and under…”
People v. Corr, 682 P.2d 20 (Colo. 1984).
· cites it 4× “See section 16-3-303, -304, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.”
People v. Poirez, 904 P.2d 880 (Colo. 1995).
· cites it 7× “The statute controlling issuance of search warrants in Colorado is section 16-3-303, 8A C.R.S. (1986), which reads: (1) A search warrant shall issue only on affidavit sworn to or affirmed before the judge and relating facts sufficient to: [[Image here]] (d) Establish probable…”
People v. Taylor, 804 P.2d 196 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “See § 16-3-303, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8A); People v.”
People v. Stoppel, 637 P.2d 384 (Colo. 1981).
· cites it 3× “See section 16-3-303(1)(d), C.R.S. 1973 (now in 1978 Repl.”
People v. Miller, 75 P.3d 1108 (Colo. 2003).
“2, § 7; see also § 16-3-303, 6 C.R.S. (2002) (specifying the requirements for a search warrant).”
People v. Conwell, 649 P.2d 1099 (Colo. 1982).
· cites it 3× “The only issue before us is whether the affidavit supporting the search warrant contained enough information establishing probable cause for the issuance of a warrant under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
People v. Cullen, 695 P.2d 750 (Colo. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “Thus, although the crimes were perpetrated eight months before the search warrants were applied for, the affidavit was sufficient to establish probable cause to believe the items were located at the sites of the searches.”
People v. Gable, 647 P.2d 246 (Colo. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “THE WRITING REQUIREMENT Defendant’s second basis for suppression of the intercepted communications lies in his contention that the trial court failed to comply with § 16-3-303(2), C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl. Vol.”
People v. Chase, 675 P.2d 315 (Colo. 1984).
· cites it 3× “The issue before us is whether the affidavit supporting the search warrant contained enough information to establish probable cause for the issuance of a warrant under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Art.”
People v. Erthal, 570 P.2d 534 (Colo. 1977).
· cites it 2× “The only information about what tools and supplies were present in defendant’s shop had been obtained February 5th when in the course of his investigation the deputy visited the defendant’s shop and reported seeing saw blades “of the type” reported stolen.”
People v. Papez, 652 P.2d 619 (Colo. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 4× “Code § 23-301 with § 16-3-303(2), C.R.S.1973, the statute merely codifies the purpose of the Fourth Amendment, namely, the protection of the homeowner.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-3-303(1): 1 case
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-3-303(1)(d): 2 cases
People v. Stoppel, 637 P.2d 384 (Colo. 1981).
“See section 16-3-303(1)(d), C.R.S. 1973 (now in 1978 Repl.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-3-303(2): 2 cases
People v. Gable, 647 P.2d 246 (Colo. Ct. App. 1982).
“THE WRITING REQUIREMENT Defendant’s second basis for suppression of the intercepted communications lies in his contention that the trial court failed to comply with § 16-3-303(2), C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl. Vol.”
People v. Papez, 652 P.2d 619 (Colo. Ct. App. 1982).
“Code § 23-301 with § 16-3-303(2), C.R.S.1973, the statute merely codifies the purpose of the Fourth Amendment, namely, the protection of the homeowner.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-3-303(l)(d): 5 cases
People v. Cullen, 695 P.2d 750 (Colo. Ct. App. 1984).
“Thus, although the crimes were perpetrated eight months before the search warrants were applied for, the affidavit was sufficient to establish probable cause to believe the items were located at the sites of the searches.”
People v. Poirez, 904 P.2d 880 (Colo. 1995).
“The statute controlling issuance of search warrants in Colorado is section 16-3-303, 8A C.R.S. (1986), which reads: (1) A search warrant shall issue only on affidavit sworn to or affirmed before the judge and relating facts sufficient to: [[Image here]] (d) Establish probable…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.