Capps v. People
| Citation | 162 Colo. 323,426 P.2d 189 |
| Decision Date | 10 April 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 21904,21904 |
| Parties | A. L. CAPPS, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
John L. Kane, Jr., Public Defender, Philip F. Roan, Brighton, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Robert C. Miller, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error.
The defendant was found guilty of aggravated robbery upon trial by jury and was sentenced to a term of not less than five years nor more than eight years in the penitentiary. Prior to trial, defendant's motion for detention of property and to suppress evidence was denied by the court after an evidentiary hearing. This writ of error is directed to the court's denial of this motion. As grounds for reversal, the defendant states that the search and seizure was unlawful and in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights in that the police, without a search warrant, entered the defendant's motel room, conducted a search which revealed a knife, a shirt, and $103 hidden under the sink in the motel room, and that the search and seizure was neither incident to arrest nor had the defendant voluntarily given his consent for such search.
A summary of the evidence relating to the issues of this case is as follows:
At approximately 4:00 P.M. on June 1, 1964 a man later identified as the defendant entered the Derby Supermarket in Commerce City, Colorado, and while pressing a knife to the side of a clerk demanded and got the contents of the cash register. Defendant, with money and knife in the same hand and covered by a shirt he was carrying, backed out of the door. Witnesses observed the defendant, after he left the market, go to a motel unit about 1 1/2 blocks distant. The police were notified, and at approximately 4:15 P.M. the same day two officers knocked at the defendant's motel room door. He opened the door and was asked questions regarding his whereabouts at approximately 4:00 P.M. that day. The defendant told them he had been in his room all day. One of the police officers related to the defendant that they were investigating the robbery of a grocery store in the vicinity and asked defendant to come with them to the grocery store. The defendant accompanied them and at the grocery store, while the defendant was inside the police car, he was identified as the robber by the grocery clerk. At this time, defendant was placed under arrest and handcuffed.
The police officers then drove the defendant back to the motel and during the ride one of the officers stated to defendant that he was under arrest for armed robbery and asked defendant if 'it would be all right if we (the police) looked in his motel unit?' The police officer testified that the defendant answered, 'that would be fine with him, because he didn't know a thing about it.' Upon arriving at the motel, the defendant was again asked to consent to a search of his motel room by the Chief of the Commerce City Police Department. The Chief asked the defendant if he objected to a search of his apartment, and the defendant answered, 'No.'
The trial court in denying defendant's motion for detention of property and to suppress evidence found from the evidence presented that (1) defendant had voluntarily consented to the search, and (2) that the search was incident to defendant's arrest.
The controlling issue on this writ of error is whether the defendant voluntarily gave his consent for the search of his motel room, and therefore in view of the disposition we herein make on this issue, we deem it unnecessary to decide whether the search was incident to arrest.
When an accused consents to a search of his premises, he waives the Fourth Amendment protection which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Smuk v. People, 72 Colo. 97, 209 P. 636; Williams v. People, 136 Colo. 164, 315 P.2d 189; People v. Harris,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Helm, 81
...854 (1973); People v. Savage, Colo., 630 P.2d 1070 (1981); Phillips v. People, 170 Colo. 520, 462 P.2d 594 (1969); Capps v. People, 162 Colo. 323, 426 P.2d 189 (1967). In concluding that the defendant's consent was involuntary and therefore ineffective, both lower courts cited our decision ......
-
People v. Lowe
...itself, to render the consent involuntary. United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 96 S.Ct. 820, 46 L.Ed.2d 598 (1976); Capps v. People, 162 Colo. 323, 426 P.2d 189 (1967). In the instant case, the consent to search was signed by the defendant at 7:43 a. m., immediately following the 7:14 a.......
-
People v. Hayhurst
...circumstances" surrounding the consent. People v. Wieckert, supra; People v. Hancock,supra; Phillips v. People, supra; Capps v. People, 162 Colo. 323, 426 P.2d 189 (1967). In the instant case, the trial court found that the Hayhursts had in fact voluntarily consented to the search. Ample ev......
-
People v. Pearson
...weigh the credibility of witnesses and resolve the questions in light of the circumstances surrounding that consent. Capps v. People, 162 Colo. 323, 426 P.2d 189 (1967). The trial court's finding of voluntariness, if supported by adequate evidence in the record, must be upheld on review. Pe......
-
Arrest, Search & Seizure: a General Overview
...86. Phillips v. People, 170 Colo. 520, 462 P.2d 594 (1969). 87. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973); Capps v. People, 162 Colo. 323, 426 P.2d 189 (1967). 88. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, supra, note 87; People v. Bensen, Colo. App., 544 P.2d 646 (1975). 89. Stoner v. California, 37......