People v. Harris

Decision Date18 June 1973
Docket NumberNo. 25986,25986
Citation182 Colo. 75,510 P.2d 1374
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael Wayne HARRIS and Susan Farley Harris, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

Stuart A. Van Meveren, Dist. Atty., Loren B. Schall, Asst. Dist. Atty., Ronald

L. Schultz, Chief Deputy Dist. Atty., Fort Collins, for plaintiff-appellant.

Lamm & Young, Robert J. Stemwedel, Jr., Denver, for defendants-appellees.

GROVES, Justice.

This is an interlocutory appeal brought by the district attorney pursuant to C.A.R. 4.1, as amended, from a ruling of the district court granting the defendants' motion to suppress evidence.

On the basis of information supplied in large part by a confidential informant, a warrant issued for the search of premises located at 1405 Allison Drive, Loveland, Colorado. As a result of the search, the defendants were charged with possession of marijuana in an amount in excess of one-half ounce, in violation of C.R.S.1963, 48--5--2 and 1971 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 48--5--20. The defendants moved to suppress the evidence seized during the search on the ground that the affidavit in support of the warrant was insufficient to establish probable cause. The motion was granted by the trial court on the basis of our decision in People v. Peschong, Colo., 506 P.2d 1232 (1973). We believe the affidavit here differs significantly from the one disapproved in Peschong and we therefore reverse the ruling of the trial court.

The affidavit in support of the search warrant reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

'1. That a confidential, reliable informant did advise the affiant, in person, that within the immediately prior forty-eight hours, the informant did personally see and observe a narcotic substance, commonly known as marijuana in the premises where a Mike Harris resides, such premises being a duplex located at Allison and Taft, Loveland, Colorado. The informant further advised the affiant that Mike Harris and his wife ('Farley') own a blue Volkswagon and an orange B.M.W.;

'2. That the informant has on a previous occasion within the last fourteen months supplied information to the affiant concerning the possession of marijuana; that such information proved reliable and accurate; and that such information resulted in the arrest and conviction of an individual for possession of narcotic drug. Further, that within the past twenty-four hours, the informant has supplied information to the affiant concerning the possession of marijuana; that such information proved reliable and accurate; and that such information resulted in the arrest of certain individuals and the seizure of a quantity of marijuana;

'3. That an officer of the Loveland, Colorado Police Department, on this date, did see a blue Volkswagon in the driveway of 1405 Allison Drive, Loveland, Colorado, with license No. SA 1261, Colorado. A check on this date, by the Loveland Colorado Police Department with the Colorado Motor Vehicle Division revealed that said license number listed to a Susan F. Harris at 1405 Allison Drive, Loveland, Colorado, on a 1969 Volkswagon. An officer of the Larimer County Colorado Sheriff's Office verified through the Colorado Motor Vehicle Division that a Michael W. Harris of 1405 Allison Drive, Loveland, Colorado had listed to him current license number SA 1112, Colorado, on a 1971 B.M.W., two door sedan.

'4. That the premises located at 1405 Allison Drive, Loveland, Colorado is part of a duplex located at the corner of Allison Drive and Taft, Loveland, Colorado . . .'

An affidavit based on information provided in large part by an unidentified informant must, in order to establish probable cause...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • People v. Arnold
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • October 29, 1974
    ...v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969); People v. Masson, Colo., 521 P.2d 1246 (1974); People v. Harris, Colo., 510 P.2d 1374 (1973); People v. Treadway, Colo., 512 P.2d 275 (1973); People v. Ward, Colo., 508 P.2d 1257 (1973); People v. Peschong, 181 Colo.--, 50......
  • People v. Stoppel
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • December 7, 1981
    ...People v. Clark, 175 Colo. 446, 488 P.2d 565 (1971); People v. MacDonald, 173 Colo. 470, 480 P.2d 555 (1971). See also People v. Harris, 182 Colo. 75, 510 P.2d 1374 (1973). The record in this case clearly indicates that Holland and Weber both told the police they personally observed Stoppel......
  • People v. Fike, 26901
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • August 18, 1975
    ...the affidavit as a whole, is that the informant saw the narcotics at the residence of Higgenbotham. As we indicated in People v. Harris, 182 Colo. 75, 510 P.2d 1374 (1973): 'We do not believe that an informer must relate to police officers the specific address of the place in which he obser......
  • Curtis, Inc. v. District Court In and For City and County of Denver, 25972
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • June 18, 1973
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Section 7 SECURITY OF PERSON AND PROPERTY - SEARCHES - SEIZURES - WARRANTS.
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Rules and C.R.S. of Evidence Annotated (CBA)
    • Invalid date
    ...facts to allow the magistrate to determine independently if the informer is credible or the information reliable. People v. Harris, 182 Colo. 75, 510 P.2d 1374 (1973); People v. Baird, 182 Colo. 284, 512 P.2d 629 (1973); People v. Masson, 185 Colo. 65, 521 P.2d 1246 (1974); People v. Arnold......
  • Arrest, Search & Seizure: a General Overview
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 6-11, November 1977
    • Invalid date
    ...48. Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 (1959). 49. People v. Arnold, 186 Colo. 372, 527 P.2d 806 (1974). See also People v. Harris, 182 Colo. 75, 510 P.2d 1374 (1973). 50. United States v. Gargiso, 456 F.2d 584 (2nd Cir. 1973). 51. United States v. Bell, 457 F.2d 1231 (5th Cir. 1972). 52......
  • The Use of Drug-sniffing Dogs in Criminal Prosecutions
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 19-9, September 1990
    • Invalid date
    ...note 8 at 382. 19. 703 F.2d 1213 (10th Cir. 1983). 20. Id. at 1216. 21. 240 Cal.Rptr. 456 (1987). 22. See, generally, People v. Harris, 510 P.2d 1374 (Colo. 1973); People v. Dailey, 639 P.2d 1068 (Colo. 1982); People v. DelAlamo, 624 P.2d 1304 (Colo. 1981). 23. 563 F.2d 1003 (10th Cir. 1977......

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