 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Fidler6/7/1971
use for believing the existence of the grounds on which the warrant was issued; or
"(5) The warrant was illegally executed."
That each of the enumerated grounds is bottomed on Fourth Amendment rights is too clear to need further discussion. Interlocutory appeals under C.A.R. 4.1 (a) may only be appealed to this court from adverse rulings on Crim. P. 41 motions. People v. Thornburg, 173 Colo. 230, 477 P.2d 372. The defendant does not argue that the doctor-patient privilege has any constitutional overtones. Whether or not the statute is a bar to the admission into evidence at the trial of the analysis of the urine sample by the doctor is purely a matter of statutory application and involves the breadth of the doctor-patient privilege as set forth in the statute. In any event, the question of the suppression of the urine sample was prematurely considered by the trial court.
The ruling of the trial court denying the motion to suppress the blood sample is affirmed. Inasmuch as we have determined that the trial court prematurely ruled on the admissibility of the urine sample and the resultant tests, we must vacate the order of suppression as to the urine sample. At the time of trial, if the urine sample and tests are offered in evidence, the court may then determine the scope of the doctor-patient privilege.
The cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Disposition
Ruling Affirmed as to Blood Sample, Disapproved as to Evidentiary Question.
|