Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 42
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-5-107 (2026)

Seizure of motor vehicles or component parts by peace officers

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

All peace officers are authorized to take and hold possession of any motor vehicle or component part if its engine number, vehicle identification number, or manufacturer's serial number has been altered, changed, or obliterated or if such officer has good and sufficient reason to believe that the motor vehicle or component part is not in the rightful possession of the driver or person in charge thereof.

Source: L. 94: Entire title amended with relocations, p. 2442, § 1, effective January 1, 1995.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1986–1996 · leading case: People v. Litchfield, 918 P.2d 1099 (Colo. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Litchfield, 918 P.2d 1099 (Colo. 1996). · cites it 76× “The court of appeals held that the search was justified neither as a protective search nor as an inventory search under section 42-5-107, 17 C.R.S. (1995 Supp.).”
City & Cnty. of Denver v. Desert Truck Sales, Inc., 837 P.2d 759 (Colo. 1992). · cites it 30× “§ 42-5-107, 17 C.R.S. (1984 & 1991 Supp.).”
People v. Bossert, 722 P.2d 998 (Colo. 1986). · cites it 17× “The defendant also argues that the evidence obtained on January 14 should have been suppressed because the police failed to follow the procedures set forth in section 42-5-107, 17 C.R.S. (1984), and because the trial judge did not conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the…”
People v. Litchfield, 902 P.2d 921 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “Section 42-5-107, C.R.S. (1994 Cum.Supp.) permits an officer to seize an automobile if the officer has “good and sufficient” reason to believe that the automobile is not in the rightful possession of the driver.”
People v. Bossert, 772 P.2d 618 (Colo. 1989). · cites it 4× “*620 The defendant next asserts that his conduct was permitted by section 42-5-107, 17 C.R.S. (1984), 4 as well as sections 42-6-107(l)(a) and 42-6-117 and that, therefore, the trial court erred in excluding his tendered defense of mistake of law.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-5-107(1) — 1 case
People v. Litchfield, 918 P.2d 1099 (Colo. 1996). “The court of appeals held that the search was justified neither as a protective search nor as an inventory search under section 42-5-107, 17 C.R.S. (1995 Supp.).”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-5-107(3) — 2 cases
City & Cnty. of Denver v. Desert Truck Sales, Inc., 837 P.2d 759 (Colo. 1992). “§ 42-5-107, 17 C.R.S. (1984 & 1991 Supp.).”
People v. Bossert, 722 P.2d 998 (Colo. 1986). “The defendant also argues that the evidence obtained on January 14 should have been suppressed because the police failed to follow the procedures set forth in section 42-5-107, 17 C.R.S. (1984), and because the trial judge did not conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-5-107(5)(a)(I) — 1 case
People v. Bossert, 722 P.2d 998 (Colo. 1986). “The defendant also argues that the evidence obtained on January 14 should have been suppressed because the police failed to follow the procedures set forth in section 42-5-107, 17 C.R.S. (1984), and because the trial judge did not conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the…”
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.