People v. Hannah, 26056
| Decision Date | 24 September 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 26056,26056 |
| Citation | 183 Colo. 9,514 P.2d 320 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joyce Evelyn HANNAH et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Robert R. Gallagher, Jr., Dist. Atty., Eighteenth Judicial District, Jerrie F. Eckelberger, Deputy Dist. Atty., Eighteenth Judicial District, Littleton, for plaintiff-appellant.
Epstein, Lozow & Preblud, P.C., Gary Lozow, Denver, for defendants-appellees Joyce Evelyn Hannah and Richard Hannah.
David B. Savitz, Denver, for defendant-appellee Cheri Lynn Harding.
This is an interlocutory appeal brought by the district attorney pursuant to C.A.R. 4.1. Defendants were charged in the Arapahoe County district court with the offenses of possession of narcotic drugs, possession for sale of narcotic drugs, and two counts of conspiracy.
The trial court granted defendants' pre-trial motions to suppress the narcotics and paraphernalia seized in a search of Apartment 202 at 850 South Birch Street in Glendale, some of which evidence was taken without the benefit of a search warrant. The court ordered that 'all evidence received by the unlawful searches be suppressed.' We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
On October 23, 1972, acting on a tip from a confidential informant, Officer Dominguez of the Denver police and Officer Burke of the Glendale police prepared an affidavit and search warrant for search of the Glendale apartment of defendant Richard Hannah. The officers left the Denver police department around 8 p.m. for the home of Arapahoe County Judge, Chris Rallis, who thereafter issued the search warrant at 8:40 p.m.
In the meantime, shortly after the officers had initially departed for the Arapahoe County judge's home, Officer Ramirez, who was Dominguez' detective-partner, received a telephone call from the confidential informant who had earlier supplied Dominguez with the factual information upon which the search warrant was based. Although Ramirez had worked with Dominguez on narcotics investigation for approximately two years, Ramirez had no independent knowledge of the reliability of the informant, who was in effect Dominguez' informant. Nonetheless, acting upon the additional information supplied to him by the informant, Ramirez and another Denver officer, Detective Frazzini, proceeded directly to Glendale where, in the company of other officers (presumably Glendale policemen), they went to defendant's apartment, arriving at approximately 9 p.m. They knocked on the door, whereupon a woman partially opened the door, which was chain-locked. Ramirez announced they were police officers and demanded entry, which was refused. The officers then broke into the apartment, rounded up the occupants and advised them they were 'securing' the apartment until a search warrant arrived.
The trial court found the occupants were effectively placed under arrest and that the arrest was made by Denver officers who admitted they had no authority to make arrests in Arapahoe County under these circumstances. Colo.Sess.Laws, 1972, ch. 44, § 1, 39--3--101 and 39--3--106.
The record further shows that approximately twenty minutes after the initial entry into the apartment Officers Burke and Dominguez arrived with a search warrant. A thorough search of the apartment and of the defendants was conducted. Heroin was found on the persons of defendants Joyce Hannah and Cheri Lynn Harding, and in the pocket of a man's jacket. Balloons and other paraphernalia were seized, together with substantial quantities of cash.
The court made the following specific findings:
'The evidence is in dispute as to whether a search was conducted prior to the arrival of the search warrant, but this Court concludes that a minor search was conducted and that balloons were evident on a table at the time the officers with the warrant arrived, and, thus, the apartment wasn't just 'secured,' but also searched by the early arrivals.
* * *
* * *
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gifford
...534 (Colo.1983); People v. Turner, 660 P.2d 1284 (Colo.1983); People v. Barndt, 199 Colo. 51, 604 P.2d 1173 (1980); and People v. Hannah, 183 Colo. 9, 514 P.2d 320 (1973). In each of these cases there was either an initial illegal search followed by a search pursuant to a warrant, Turner; b......
-
People v. Barndt, 79SA345
...hence, the evidence should not be excluded. The People also contend that the trial court, by attempting to distinguish People v. Hannah, 183 Colo. 9, 514 P.2d 320 (1973), from the facts of this case, erred in ruling that the second search was illegal. They urge us not to abandon the Hannah ......
-
People v. Williams
...J., concur in the result. 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).2 See, E.g., People v. Hannah, 183 Colo. 9, 12, 514 P.2d 320, 322 (1973); Condon v. People, 176 Colo. 212, 219, 220, 489 P.2d 1297, 1301 (1971) (where odor thought to be decomposing human body......
-
People v. Turner
...1047 (1968); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); People v. Barndt, supra; People v. Hannah, 183 Colo. 9, 514 P.2d 320 (1973). Therefore, we are required to determine whether the sufficiency of the affidavit 2 submitted in support of the request for t......
-
Choice of law and predictability of decisions in products liability cases.
..."the lex loci delicti rule is too harsh and inflexible and is an unsatisfactory rule"); supra note 50. (177.) See, e.g., First Nat'l, 514 P.2d at 320 (adopting the Second Restatement methodology for tort cases and expressing a hope that further development of the body of case law will enabl......