People v. Hamilton, 26766
| Decision Date | 14 April 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 26766,26766 |
| Citation | 188 Colo. 250,533 P.2d 919 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Glenn Christian HAMILTON, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Sheldon Emeson, Dist. Atty., Lamar, for plaintiff-appellant.
Rollie R. Rogers, State Public Defender, James F. Dumas, Jr., Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Robert M. Elliott, Deputy State Public Defender, La Junta, for defendant-appellee.
The district attorney brings this interlocutory appeal from a ruling of the district court granting defendant's motion to suppress statements made to police officers following his arrest. This ruling was grounded on the district court's finding that the evidence presented by the district attorney failed to establish probable cause to arrest without a warrant, thus rendering the statements inadmissible under the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine of Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963).
An information charging the defendant with conspiracy with his wife to commit second-degree forgery was filed several days after the defendant's arrest. This charge involved the alleged fraudulent use of a credit card by the defendant's wife at a business establishment in Lamar, Colorado.
The defendant's arrest by the sheriff occurred after the Colorado State Highway Patrol dispatched by radio a pickup order for a red and white Oldsmobile with a Washington license plate. The dispatch indicated the reason for the pickup order '. . . was for fraudulent use of a credit card, of them.' After receiving this message, a policeman observed this vehicle and stopped it at Holly, Colorado, which is located several miles east of Lamar. The sheriff, who also apparently heard the radio dispatch was near by and immediately drove to the location where the vehicle had been stopped. The defendant, his wife, and their two children were in the vehicle.
At the suppression hearing, no evidence, other than the sheriff's account of the radio dispatch, was presented by the district attorney. The district court properly ruled that this was insufficient to show probable cause to arrest this defendant without a warrant. See People v. Valdez, 173 Colo. 410, 480 P.2d 574 (1971) regarding the burden on the prosecution at a suppression hearing pertaining to evidence secured and alleged to be tainted because of a warrantless arrest without probable cause.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bergstrom
...has been advanced why a parole officer should not come within the fellow officer doctrine, as recognized by our decisions in People v. Hamilton, Colo., 533 P.2d 919; People v. Nanes, 174 Colo. 294, 483 P.2d 958. It follows that since the arrest was valid the evidence obtained in connection ......
-
State v. Clark, 47912
...Hawaii 295, 367 P.2d 499). The 'fellow officer' rule as applicable to police radio dispatched information was summarized in People v. Hamilton, Colo., 533 P.2d 919, in this '. . . An arresting officer who does not have in his possession sufficient information to constitute probable cause ma......
-
People v. Hazelhurst
...People v. Baca, 198 Colo. 399, 401, 600 P.2d 770, 771 (1979). See also People v. Henry, 631 P.2d 1122 (Colo.1981); People v. Hamilton, 188 Colo. 250, 533 P.2d 919 (1975). In People v. Nanes, 174 Colo. 294, 300-01, 483 P.2d 958, 962 (1971), we "It is not necessary for the arresting officer t......
-
People v. Herrera, 79CA0582
...reason has been advanced why such an authorized investigator should not come within the fellow officer doctrine. See People v. Hamilton, 188 Colo. 250, 533 P.2d 919 (1975); People v. Nanes, 174 Colo. 294, 483 P.2d 958 Since there is no real question that investigator Durbin had probable cau......
-
Probable Cause Based on Citizen, Anonymous, and Confidential Informants
...1371, 1377 (Colo. 1983). 57. Saars, supra, note 4 at 625; People v. Corbett, 5547 P.2d 1264, 1265-66 (Colo. 1976); People v. Hamilton, 533 P.2d 919 (Colo. 58. Under some circumstances, the prosecution may be required to disclose the identity of the confidential informant. See Feder, "Confid......