 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Copenhaver9/14/2000
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
Ruland and Pierce*, JJ., concur *Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of the Colo. Const. art. VI, Sec. 5(3), and §24-51-1105, C.R.S. 2000.
Defendant, Jeffrey Copenhaver, appeals a judgment of conviction entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of possession of a schedule II controlled substance (cocaine), possession of drug paraphernalia, driving under the influence , and driving under restraint. We affirm.
Defendant was identified by a witness as the driver of a truck involved in an accident. Police officers contacted defendant in the parking lot of his apartment complex. They subsequently entered his apartment and, while inside, observed a bindle of cocaine on the kitchen counter.
After charges were filed against him, defendant reached a plea agreement with the prosecution, but the trial court refused to accept it. Defendant then filed motions to suppress statements and evidence taken by the police. Following hearings on both motions, the trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence, but did not rule on his motion to suppress statements. A jury trial was held, and defendant was convicted as charged.
I.
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized during a warrantless search of his apartment. We do not agree.
Searches and seizures of private property must be reasonable. A warrantless search is presumptively unreasonable. The burden is on the prosecution to establish that the search falls within some clearly recognized exception to the warrant requirement. People v. Kluhsman, 980 P.2d 529 (Colo. 1999).
One such exception is the existence of exigent circumstances necessitating immediate police action. If the prosecution establishes both probable cause to support the search and exigent circumstances justifying the unauthorized entry, evidence discovered during a warrantless search is admissible. People v. Kluhsman, supra.
Exigent circumstances exist when there is a colorable claim of emergency threatening the life or safety of another. To invoke the emergency doctrine, there must be an immediate crisis and the probability that assistance will be helpful. People v. Kluhsman, supra; People v. Harper, 902 P.2d 842 (Colo. 1995).
It is the function of the trial court, not the appellate court, to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses. In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, we give deference to that court's findings of fact. We may not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court unless its findings are clearly erroneous or not supported by the record. People v. Mendoza-Balderama, 981 P.2d 150 (Colo. 1999).
Here, in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence, the trial court made the following findings of fact:
Mr. Copenhaver was contacted, the vehicle was found, there was blood in the vehicle, Mr. Copenhaver said he wasn't the driver, there was a driver's license or there was a document in the front seat which the officer could see that showed a driver's license pertaining to someone else, I think. And I think the vehicle was not Mr. Copenhaver's vehicle; it traced to someone else.
So based upon that, the officers knocked on a door and entered to see if there was someone injured in that apartment. And in the course of looking for that injured person, the substance -- whatever it was -- was on the counter in the kitchen.
The court then concluded that the search of the apartment and the seizure of the cocaine were not unreasonable.
The testimony of
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Colorado DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|