People v. Eichelberger

• Decision Date: 22 December 1980
• Docket Number: No. 80SA159,80SA159
• Citation: 620 P.2d 1067
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jack EICHELBERGER, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Page 1067

620 P.2d 1067

The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.Jack EICHELBERGER, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 80SA159.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

Dec. 22, 1980.

Dale Tooley, Dist. Atty., O. Otto Moore, Asst. Dist. Atty., Brooke Wunnicke, Chief Appellate Deputy Dist. Atty., Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.

Lawrence J. Schulman, Denver, for defendant-appellee.

ERICKSON, Justice.

The prosecution, pursuant to Rule 4.1(a), C.A.R., has taken an interlocutory appeal to review an order suppressing certain evidence and statements made by the defendant.The district court concluded that there was not probable cause to justify the warrantless arrest of the defendant, and ordered that the statements and evidence seized be suppressed as fruit of the illegal arrest.We do not agree with the district court.In our view, probable cause to arrest was established.¹Therefore, we reverse the district court's ruling on the suppression of the evidence and statements, and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

On September 9, 1979, a criminal complaint was filed in the county court of the City and County of Denver charging the defendant, Jack L. Eichelberger, and Coyote Lightfeather, with arson and with the murder of Erwin Bell.Following a preliminary hearing, the defendants were bound over to the district court to answer charges of murder in the first degree and arson in the first degree.The defendants were subsequently granted separate trials and entered pleas of not guilty.

The defendant, Eichelberger, filed a motion to suppress statements and physical evidence which he claimed were the product of an illegal arrest.An extended evidentiary hearing was held on his motion to suppress.The trial judge made findings of fact and conclusions of law and denied the motion to suppress.Thereafter, a motion to reconsider ruling on defendant's motion to suppress statements and evidence was filed, supported by People v. Bookman, Colo.App., 615 P.2d 44(1980), cert. granted, No. 80SC116(1980).The trial judge, after reviewing the testimony at the preliminary hearing and the suppression hearing, and adopting the rationale of People v. Bookman, supra, granted the defendant's motion to suppress.In our view, People v. Bookman, supra, which is before us for review on certiorari, is not applicable to the facts in this case.

Probable cause is the touchstone for measuring the right to arrest without a warrant.The circumstances in every case must be considered to determine the existence of probable cause and the reasonableness of the police conduct.People v. Fratus, 187 Colo. 52, 528 P.2d 392(1974).The burden of proof was on the prosecution to establish the existence of probable cause to arrest the defendant without a warrant.People v. Gomez, 193 Colo. 208, 563 P.2d 952(1977), People v. Bates190 Colo. 291, 546 P.2d 491(1976).In Bates, the Court said:

"Section 16-3-102(1)(c), C.R.S.1973, provides that a peace officer may make a warrantless arrest under certain circumstances when he has probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed by the person to be arrested.As we said in Gonzales v. People, 156 Colo. 252, 398 P.2d 236, cert. denied381 U.S. 945, 85 S.Ct. 1788, 14 L.Ed.2d 709:

'Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge, and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed....In dealing with probable cause, one deals with probabilities.These are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act....' "(Emphasis added.)Id. at 293, 546 P.2d 491.

At the conclusion of the first hearing on the defendant's motion to suppress, the trial judge made the following findings of fact, which we conclude, establish probable cause to arrest the defendant:

"(FINDINGS OF FACT) In the early evening hours of September 5, 1979, Denver Police received a call to investigate a suspected homicide at 16 W. 10th Avenue in Denver, Colorado.Detectives Dominguez and Estrada responded shortly before 8:00 p. m., along with several other police officers, and upon arrival, these detectives viewed a body covered with a sheet, which had been pulled into the hallway from apartment 208.It was determined that the body was that of Erwin Bell, who lived in apartment 208, and that Mr. Bell had died.They spoke briefly with Detective Wyckoff, and then split up to interview witnesses.

"Detective Dominguez spoke with Mrs. Elaine Gonzales, the apartment manager, who related excitedly that there were two people the police should be looking for-an Indian man on crutches and Jack Eichelberger.She said that Mr. Eichelberger lived with the victim, Mr. Bell, in apartment 208, and that Mr. Bell had told her earlier in the day he and Mr. Eichelberger and the Indian had had a fight.She indicated that all three men were alcoholics, and fought a great deal, but that Mr. Bell was a very nice man.She described Jack Eichelberger as being in his late forties, tall and slender.She also indicated that she knew the Indian, but did not know his name.

"Detective Estrada spoke with Grover Horton, who told him that he saw two people leaving apartment 208 shortly before the fire started.One was a person he knew, named Jack, and the other was an Indian, whom he had seen before.He supplied a physical description of Jack as being tall and slender and middle aged.

"Each officer interviewed some other witnesses, and then they met to compare their findings.After trading the above information, and discussing the situation with Detective Wyckoff and Chief Deputy District AttorneyChristopher Munch, a decision was made to seek the arrest of Jack and the Indian for investigation of homicide.Accordingly, Detective Dinan and Sergeant Woods, who were organizing the efforts of other police officers in the area, were instructed to see that the information was relayed to the police dispatcher and to other officers.Sergeant Woods then went back to see Mrs. Gonzales, and they proceeded up Broadway in search of the two individuals, as Mrs. Gonzales told him that she had seen the two people on her way home from work shortly before arrival at the scene.Defendant Coyote Lightfeather was found sitting on a bus bench at 11th and Broadway, alone.

"In response to a radio call, Officer Robert Dill met...