People v. Clark
| Decision Date | 16 November 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 24779,24779 |
| Citation | 476 P.2d 564,173 Colo. 129 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steve CLARK and David Gardner, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Stanley F. Johnson, Dist. Atty., Ralph S. Josephsohn, Deputy Dist. Atty., Boulder, for plaintiff-appellee.
Francis R. Salazar, Denver, for defendant-appellant David Gardner.
Gardner, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, is one of the two co-defendants in this case. This Interlocutory Appeal concerns issues related solely to Gardner.
The Boulder Police Department, through information received from an informer, 'arranged' for a purchase of narcotic drugs. Two undercover officers agreed to meet co-defendant Clark and one Slifin to make the purchase. Clark and Slifin arrived at the pre-arranged corner. Undercover officers Lowell Newby and his brother parked across the street from them. Clark approached the car in which the officers were waiting and told them that a third party, David, had overslept and would have to be called. The call was made and the officers were told David would be there in a few minutes with the drugs. About five minutes later, a Volkswagen but pulled up. Clark went to talk to the driver and returned. He gave a bag to Officer Newby, and told him the pills inside were 'good acid.' Newby then placed Clark and Slifin under arrest.
At this time, and By pre-arranged signal, Newby flashed his brake lights to indicate to Detective Hensley and another officer hiding in a nearby garage that the deal was completed. These two officers approached the Volkswagen, and ordered the driver to come out. The driver proved to be the defendant. One of the officers placed defendant under arrest as soon as he exited from the Volkswagen. This officer testified that as the defendant stepped from the vehicle, he noticed that a package on the front seat was in plain view. He picked up the package, which later proved to contain additional quantities of illegal drugs.
At the hearing on the pre-trial motion to suppress, defendant's position was that this search was made without a warrant, and was therefore illegal. The trial judge ruled that taking the package was not in any way a seizure by the officers, but was in fact legal under the 'plain view' rule. For purposes of this appeal, defendant now alleges as error the following points: (1) That the arresting officers had no probable cause to arrest defendant and therefore the ensuing confiscation of the package was illegal, and (2) since the arrest was illegal, the officers needed a search warrant to take anything out of the Volkswagen. Since we are of the opinion the arresting officers clearly had probable cause to arrest Gardner, we affirm and will not need to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Nanes
...U--Haul van were lawful. Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419; People v. Mojo, Colo., 480 P.2d 571; People v. Clark, Colo., 476 P.2d 564. The ruling is ...
-
Surianello v. State
...and practical considerations of everyday life, on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act. People v. Clark, 173 Colo. 129, 476 P.2d 564 (1970). If the circumstances at the time of an arrest are sufficient to justify a finding that probable cause existed, the court will ......
-
People v. Bates
...of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.' * * *' (Emphasis added.) See also People v. Clark, 173 Colo. 129, 476 P.2d 564; Scott v. People, 166 Colo. 432, 444 P.2d 388. To determine whether these guidelines have been met, courts must decide whether th......
-
Stork v. People
...match boxes containing the suspected contraband was clearly permissible, inasmuch as they were in plain view. See, e.g., People v. Clark, Colo., 476 P.2d 564 (1970); People v. Baird, Colo., 470 P.2d 20 (1970). The defendant's contention that the seizure was impermissible under Chimel v. Cal......
-
Using Local Police Powers to Protect the Environment
...See People v. Saars, 584 P.2d 622 (Colo. 1978); Boileau, supra, note 17; People v. Weinert, 482 P.2d 103 (Colo. 1971); People v. Clark, 476 P.2d 564 (Colo. 1970). 19. A notable exception exists for abandonment or spilling on private property with the consent of the landowner, but absent per......