Mayorga v. People, 24470
| Decision Date | 10 April 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 24470,24470 |
| Citation | 496 P.2d 304,178 Colo. 106 |
| Parties | Robert MAYORGA, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rollie R. Rogers, State Public Defender, J. D. MacFarlane, Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Kenneth J. Russell, Deputy State Public Defender, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., George E. DeRoos, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error, Robert Mayorga, was convicted by a jury of possession of narcotic drugs in the District Court of the City and County of Denver. This conviction state constitutional provision governing of heroin and marijuana seized from his apartment pursuant to a search warrant which he contends was invalid. We affirm the conviction.
The record shows that a search warrant was issued by a Denver county judge upon affidavit of Sergeant Charles J. Kennedy of the Denver police narcotics bureau. This warrant authorized a search for narcotics and drug paraphernalia at the place known as 729 South Washington Street, which had been under surveillance by Kennedy for some time prior to the issuance of the warrant.
Armed with the warrant, Sergeant Kennedy and two other officers arrived at the premises and knocked at the back door, where they were admitted by the defendant. A copy of the search warrant was handed to the defendant who, upon reading it, stated: 'This isn't 729 South Washington; this is 721 South Washington.' The defendant then returned the warrant to Kennedy, who announced: 'Everybody hold it right there.' He instructed the other officers, who had not yet commenced the search, to remain at the premises while he returned to the home of the county judge where the warrant had been originally issued. The affidavit and the warrant were amended by the judge to show the correct street address--721 South Washington Street. Kennedy then returned to the premises, again served the defendant, and the search was thereupon conducted, resulting in seizure of the contraband and the subsequent arrest of the defendant.
A motion to suppress was heard prior to the commencement of trial. After an evidentiary hearing, the court denied the motion, finding as follows:
Error is assigned to the court's denial of the motion to suppress and to the admission into evidence of the narcotics seized. Defendant contends that the warrant was invalid because it misdescribed the premises to be searched and did not therefore comply with the constitutional requirements of the Fourth Amendment to the United...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Shuey
...us.8 The People cite two cases from sister jurisdictions as supportive of their position. Both are inapposite. In Mayorga v. People (1972) 178 Colo. 106, 496 P.2d 304, the police arrived at the defendant's premises armed with a valid warrant but one in which the numerals designating the str......
-
Riley v. State
...denied, 454 U.S. 963, 102 S.Ct. 503, 70 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981); 2 W. LAFAVE, SEARCH AND SEIZURE § 4.12 (1978). See also Mayorga v. People, 178 Colo. 106, 496 P.2d 304 (1972); State v. Pointer, 135 N.J.Super. 472, 343 A.2d 762, pet. for cert. denied, 69 N.J. 79, 351 A.2d 7 (1975); State v. Johns......
-
State v. Elam
...out the judicial command of the warrant to conduct a search of the premises authorized to be searched." Mayorga v. People, 178 Colo. 106, 107, 496 P.2d 304, 305 (1972) (En Banc). See also 79 C.J.S. Searches and Seizures Sec. 83(a), at 897 (1952) ("A search warrant is executed by making the ......
-
People v. Gillis
...Nor was it inappropriate for the police to remain on the premises while an amended warrant was being sought. See Mayorga v. People, 178 Colo. 106, 496 P.2d 304 (1972). Similarly, it was not unreasonable for the officers, in a continuing effort to secure their safety, to require defendant an......