Alire v. People
| Decision Date | 26 April 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 20932,20932 |
| Citation | 402 P.2d 610,157 Colo. 103 |
| Parties | Alfonso Juan ALIRE, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Walter F. Scherer, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error, to whom we will refer as the defendant, was found guilty of having unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, to-wit, heroin, contrary to the provisions of 48-6-2, C.R.S.1953 as amended (which is now condified 48-5-2, C.R.S.1963).
Prior to the time of trial, counsel for the defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence, in which it was asserted that the heroin involved in the case came into the possession of police officers as the result of an illegal search and seizure. This motion was denied. The only point urged as ground for reversal is that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress the evidence.
The attorney general and counsel for the defendant agree that the following is a fair statement of the evidence which bears upon the question to be determined: On September 7, 1962, the defendant was stopped by two Denver detectives for investigation of an alleged traffic violation. After the defendant stopped his car, Officer Norden drove back over the route driven by defendant in an attempt to find any contraband that might have been thrown from the car. Unable to find anything, he returned to the car where Officer Kennedy and defendant were standing. Norden put a flashlight beam into defendant's car and observed what appeared to be a No. 5 gelatin capsule containing white powder, on the front seat near the middle of the car. He brought this to the defendant's and Officer Kennedy's attention before he opened the door. Defendant thereupon responded, 'That isn't my junk--I haven't had any.' Officer Norden then opened the door and retrieved the capsule. The witness identified People's Exhibit A as the capsule referred to.
Officer Kennedy testified to following defendant's car and, when it stopped, ordering him to get out of it. He observed at the time, 'I should put him in jail for reckless and careless driving.' After Officer Norden retrieved the capusule from the car, the defendant was taken to jail and thereafter was served with a citation for careless driving. Officer Hoaglund, assigned to the crime laboratory, identified People's Exhibit A as a capsule containing hereoin.
The defendant, testifying in his own behalf, admitted a prior federal conviction of the crime of perjury. He further testified in substance as follows: That on September 6, 1963, with one Walker in his car, he was followed by a car driven by police officers; that his passenger got out; that defendant stopped his car and the two police officers asked him if he had had with a man identified as Eliot Walker; and that the officers then said they were going to give him a ticket for speeding. After that the officers told him to get out of the car, informing him that 'We are going to shake you down.' Officer Norden then said 'There's the cap, right on the seat,' and he thereupon reached in and got it. The spot on the seat was where Walker had been sitting. Defendant however denied having known the capsule was there, or having seen it before. He denied ever having any narcotics in his possession on the day in question or at any prior time. On cross-examination he admitted having used narcotics but denied having used them before September 7, 1962. In rebuttal, Officer Linville testified that the defendant admitted using heroin on September 6, 1962, and that defendant's arms showed injection marks. The defendant then called Eliot Walker as a witness, but he refused to testify claiming constitutional immunity from self-incrimination.
In addition to the foregoing, there is evidence that the two police officers began their surveillance of the defendant prior to the commission by him of any offense of careless or reckless driving. The officers were assigned to the Intelligence Narcotics Bureau of the Denver Police Department. They were acquainted with the defendant prior to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelley v. State
...places would be. Edwards v. State, 38 Wis.2d 332, 156 N.W.2d 397 (1968); State v. Ashby, 245 So.2d 225 (Fla.1971); Alire v. People, 157 Colo. 103, 402 P.2d 610 (1965). See, Gerard v. State, 237 Ark. 287, 372 S.W.2d 635. See also, Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726......
-
People v. Boileau
...their eyes to evidence lying in plain view; 'it is not considered a search to observe that which is open and patent.' Alire v. People, 157 Colo. 103, 402 P.2d 610. The reasonable exercise of the broad duties of police officers clearly includes the inherent right to enter and investigate in ......
-
People v. Amato
...also Blincoe v. People, 178 Colo. 34, 494 P.2d 1285 (1972); People v. LaRocco, 178 Colo. 196, 496 P.2d 314 (1972), and Alire v. People, 157 Colo. 103, 402 P.2d 610 (1965). Any inferences which may be drawn from People v. Boileau, 36 Colo.App. 157, 538 P.2d 484 (1975), indicating a contrary ......
-
People v. Waits, 27890
...Rather an officer need only have "good reason to believe" that the article to be seized is incriminating evidence. Alire v. People, 157 Colo. 103, 402 P.2d 610 (1965). This reasonable belief may be based either on the article's intrinsic nature or on the officer's knowledge and experience a......
-
A Dui Primer
...P, 2d 500 (Colo. 1971) (failure to dim headlights); People v. Teague, 476 P.2d 751 (Colo. 1971) (stop sign violation); Alire v. People, 402 P.2d 610 (Colo. 1965) (careless driving); Stream v. v. Heckers, 519 P.2d 336 (Colo. 1974) (any "erratic driving"). 3. CRS §§ 16-3-103 and 42-4-1202.1. ......