People ex rel. K.D.W.

Decision Date23 July 2020
Docket NumberCourt of Appeals No. 17CA1122
Citation471 P.3d 1276
Parties The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner-Appellee, IN the INTEREST OF K.D.W., Juvenile-Appellant.
CourtColorado Court of Appeals

Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Gabriel Olivares, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Petitioner-Appellee

Megan A. Ring, Colorado State Public Defender, Ryann S. Hardman, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Juvenile-Appellant

Opinion by JUDGE ROMÁN

¶ 1 K.D.W., a juvenile, appeals the district court's affirmance of his adjudication of delinquency. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. Background

¶ 2 Police officers in an unmarked vehicle were investigating a series of recent residential burglaries when they observed a black male speaking with the driver of a large, green van in a park. The officers followed the van as it drove away and observed a white vehicle following the van. The white vehicle later evaded police when they attempted to conduct a traffic stop.

¶ 3 The officers returned to the area and saw K.D.W., whom they believed to be the male they saw speaking with the driver of the green van. K.D.W. was observed with a backpack and a trash bag. Nearby uniformed officers were instructed to contact K.D.W., who was sitting on a park bench.

¶ 4 As one officer approached K.D.W. in her patrol vehicle, he began to walk away. The officer got out of the vehicle and said, "[H]ey, I need to talk to you." K.D.W. stopped. The officer requested K.D.W. take his hand out of his pocket and put down his backpack and bag. K.D.W. complied. However, K.D.W. twice refused to allow the officer to pat him down. By that time, another officer had arrived and was standing nearby.

¶ 5 Both officers attempted to grab K.D.W. but failed, and he fled the area. One officer pursued K.D.W. in her vehicle, and the other stayed behind with the bags. Several officers and a detective responded to a call for assistance in stopping K.D.W., who climbed over a fence and ran through a residential backyard. A detective observed K.D.W. in an alley, crouched down and appearing to change his shirt. Officers eventually stopped him in the front yard of another property. Once K.D.W. was detained, officers radioed that they "had found ammunition on his person," so other officers in the area began canvassing for a firearm, as they were "worried that maybe a gun had been dropped ...or thrown away in the area." The officer who initially pursued K.D.W. took him into custody.

¶ 6 Once the officer that stayed near the park received word that K.D.W. was detained, he opened the backpack K.D.W. had left behind. It contained a box of .22 caliber ammunition, a Ruger .22 semi-automatic pistol, a green baggie and a white plastic container that the officer believed contained marijuana, and loose marijuana at the bottom of the bag.

¶ 7 K.D.W. was taken to the local jail, where he made incriminating statements about the incident to an officer relating to his possession of a handgun.

¶ 8 The People filed a delinquency petition charging K.D.W. with (1) possession of a handgun by a juvenile; (2) obstructing a peace officer; (3) attempt to carry a concealed weapon; (4) second degree trespass; and (5) possession of marijuana by an underage person.

¶ 9 After a bench trial, a magistrate adjudicated K.D.W. a delinquent on all counts and sentenced him to one year of probation. K.D.W. sought district court review of the magistrate's determinations. The district court denied his petition in a written order and adopted the magistrate's adjudication order.

II. Analysis

¶ 10 On appeal, K.D.W. contends that (A) the district court erred when it denied his motions to suppress because the police did not have reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop and (B) the evidence is insufficient to support his adjudication for obstructing a peace officer.

A. Motions to Suppress

¶ 11 K.D.W. contends that the district court erred by denying his motions to suppress because the officers did not have the requisite reasonable suspicion "that criminal activity has occurred, is taking place, or is about to take place" when they stopped K.D.W. People v. Revoal , 2012 CO 8, ¶ 10, 269 P.3d 1238 (quoting People v. Padgett , 932 P.2d 810, 814-15 (Colo. 1997) ). We agree. We further conclude that, while the attenuation exception to the exclusionary rule applies to the search of K.D.W.'s pockets and the statements he made to officers after his arrest, it does not apply to the search of his backpack because the backpack was seized during the improper investigatory stop. Therefore, we affirm K.D.W.'s adjudications for obstruction and trespass, reverse his adjudications for possession of a handgun by a juvenile, attempt to carry a concealed weapon, and possession of marijuana, and remand for further proceedings.

1. Standard of Review and Applicable Law

¶ 12 A magistrate's or district court's "ruling on a suppression motion presents a mixed question of fact and law." People v. Tomaske , 2019 CO 35, ¶ 7, 440 P.3d 444. We defer to the district court's findings of fact if they are supported by competent evidence in the record. Id. We review the district court's conclusions of law de novo. Id.

¶ 13 Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

¶ 14 "There are three categories of encounters between police and citizens: (1) arrests; (2) investigatory stops; and (3) consensual interviews." People v. Scheffer , 224 P.3d 279, 284 (Colo. App. 2009). Only arrests and investigatory stops implicate the search and seizure protections of the Fourth Amendment and article II, section 7 of the Colorado Constitution. Id. As relevant here, "[a]n investigatory stop is an encounter in which an officer briefly stops a suspicious person and makes reasonable inquiries to confirm or dispel these suspicions, such as determining an individual's identity or obtaining an explanation of a person's behavior." People v. Funez-Paiagua , 2012 CO 37, ¶ 7, 276 P.3d 576. The parties do not challenge the district court's finding that K.D.W. was "seized" and that the encounter here constituted an investigatory stop.

¶ 15 For an investigatory stop to be constitutionally valid, (1) the officer must have a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has occurred, is taking place, or is about to take place; (2) the purpose of the intrusion must be reasonable; and (3) the scope and character of the intrusion must be reasonably related to its purpose. Revoal , ¶ 10. At issue in this case is whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop.

¶ 16 To determine whether an officer had reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop, we must consider the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time of the intrusion. Id. at ¶ 11. This may include the officer's own observations as well as information supplied by a fellow officer. People v. Threlkel , 2019 CO 18, ¶ 21, 438 P.3d 722. To justify an investigatory stop, an officer must be able to point to "specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion." Revoal , ¶ 11 (quoting Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) ). Whether reasonable suspicion exists is based on an objective (not subjective) standard and depends on the totality of the circumstances. People v. Reyes-Valenzuela , 2017 CO 31, ¶ 12, 392 P.3d 520.

¶ 17 Evidence of a crime that is derived from evidence discovered through illegal police activity may be suppressed under the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine. Wong Sun v. United States , 371 U.S. 471, 485, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963) ; Perez v. People , 231 P.3d 957, 962 (Colo. 2010). Absent narrow exceptions not applicable here, if evidence was obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure, it must be suppressed. See People v. Rodriguez , 945 P.2d 1351, 1363 (Colo. 1997). Whether evidence was obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure depends on whether the evidence was obtained by exploiting the illegality or instead by "means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint" of the illegality. Id. at 1363-64 (quoting Wong Sun , 371 U.S. at 488, 83 S.Ct. 407 ).

¶ 18 "If a trial court erroneously admits evidence in violation of the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule, we must reverse unless the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." People v. Dyer , 2019 COA 161, ¶ 17, 457 P.3d 783. This standard requires the People to prove the error does not require reversal. Id.

2. Additional Facts

¶ 19 Before trial, K.D.W. filed a "Motion to Suppress Evidence, Observations and Statements Stemming from the Illegal and Unsupported Search of [K.D.W.]'s Pockets and Backpack" and a "Motion to Suppress Evidence, Observations, and Statements from the Unsupported and Illegal Arrest of [K.D.W.]."

¶ 20 At the motions hearing, the police officers and detectives involved with the investigation, attempted stop, and pursuit of K.D.W. testified. As relevant here, the court issued the following findings of fact:

• Officers were investigating a recent string of local, residential, daytime burglaries.
• The morning of the events at issue, officers saw a black male talking to the driver of a green van at a park known known for "gangs, assaults, drug activity, and weapons."
• Officers observed the van pull out of the parking lot, and, as they were following the van, they noticed a white car that also appeared to be following the van.
• The white car then eluded police after an attempted traffic stop.
• Because the officers were concerned about potential connections between the vehicles and what they saw at the park, they returned to the park.
• Officers saw
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • People ex rel. C.C-S.
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • October 21, 2021
    ...440 P.3d 444, 447. The rule has been applied to juvenile delinquency proceedings. People in Interest of K.D.W. , 2020 COA 110, ¶ 18, 471 P.3d 1276, 1280-81. The exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy for deterring illegal searches and seizures. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole v. Scott ,......
  • People v. Garcia
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • July 28, 2022
    ...a "de novo review." See, e.g. , People v. Vidauri , 2021 CO 25, ¶ 10, 486 P.3d 239 ; People in Interest of K.D.W. , 2020 COA 110, ¶ 37, 471 P.3d 1276. However, this increasingly used shorthand reference can be a bit misleading. ¶ 16 The original, and more complete, recitation of the standar......
  • People v. Deutsch
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • July 23, 2020

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT