People v. Lucero
| Decision Date | 11 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 25335,25335 |
| Citation | 182 Colo. 39,511 P.2d 468 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest L. LUCERO, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Sara Duncan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Rollie R. Rogers, Colorado State Public Defender, J. D. MacFarlane, Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Kenneth J. Russell, Deputy State Public Defender, Natalie S. Ellwood, Dorian E. Welsh, Asst. Public Defenders, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Ernest L. Lucero, defendant herein, appeals from his conviction for assault with a deadly weapon and assault with intent to rob, both in violation of C.R.S.1963, 40--2--34.
During the People's case the defendant moved to suppress certain evidence (a ski mask and a .22 caliber revolver) seized in a search of an automobile incident to defendant's arrest. This motion was denied by the trial court. On appeal defendant's sole contention is that the search of the automobile was not incident to a lawful arrest and the evidence obtained as a result of the search is inadmissible against him. We do not agree and affirm the judgment of the district court.
The facts relevant to the issue raised by defendant are uncontroverted. At about 6:00 p.m. on December 28, 1970, Jack's Corner Grocery was the target of an attempted robbery by a man armed with a pistol. The grocery's proprietor, Jack Newfield, immediately phoned police, and officers Bame and O'Connel were dispatched to the scene to investigate. Besides Jack Newfield, the investigating officers questioned the store helper, Terry Rios, who described the assailant as a Caucasian male, five foot eleven inches in height, possibly 160--165 pounds, wearing a dark blue shirt, a brown coat, and a blue ski mask over his face. Other unidentified persons in and around the grocery were also interviewed and police obtained a general description of the getaway vehicle as a dark blue car, possibly a Ford Falcon. These descriptions of the suspect and getaway vehicle were immediately radioed to patrol cars in the vicinity by Officer Bame while Officer O'Connel continued the investigation.
Shortly after the descriptions were radioed, Officer Jones, who had received the bulletin while traveling in his patrol car in the general vicinity of the grocery, observed a blue Ford Falcon following behind him. Based upon the description of the getaway vehicle in the bulletin, Officer Jones decided to stop the Falcon and investigate its occupants. While Officer Jones was in the process of slowing his patrol car to make the stop the suspect vehicle was stopped by a second patrol car, presumably pursuant to the same bulletin. Officer Jones parked in front of the Falcon and got out of his patrol car to investigate. Approaching the Falcon, Officer Jones observed its occupants, and one of them matched the detailed description of the suspect that had been broadcast over Officer Jones' radio. Officer Jones reached underneath the front seat on the passenger side and pulled out a blue piece of material that turned out to be a blue ski mask. Inside the ski mask Officer Jones found a .22 caliber revolver. Officer Jones then placed the defendant under arrest.
Defendant challenges the reliability of the information describing the getaway vehicle, contending the source of this information was not identified. It is true there is no evidence in the record to indicate that the investigating officers obtained the description of the getaway vehicle from either of the two citizen informants who gave their names and addresses, that is, Jack Newfield or Terry Rios. See People v. Glaubman, 175 Colo. 41, 485 P.2d 711. Furthermore, we cannot infer that either of these two named witnesses was the source of this information since the testimony of both clearly indicates they did not follow the assailant outside the grocery; instead, immediately after the assailant fled, they turned their attention to reporting the crime and remained inside to phone police. Since the description of the getaway vehicle was unquestionably obtained at the scene by investigating officers, the only reasonable inference remaining is that the source of the information was one or more of the Unidentified persons on the scene who were also questioned. See People v. Nanes, 174 Colo. 294, 483 P.2d 958, 961; Roberts v. People, 9 Colo. 458, 474, 13 P. 630. We must, therefore, determine whether the description of the getaway vehicle supplied by Unidentified persons at the crime scene provides a constitutionally sufficient basis for the officers to make an investigative stop of the Falcon.
In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, the United States Supreme Court recognized that a police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for purposes of investigation of possible criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause for arrest. The rationale of that case is that the Fourth Amendment does not require a policeman who lacks the precise level of information...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Smith
...supra; People v. Mangum, 189 Colo. 246, 539 P.2d 120 (1975); People v. Martineau, 185 Colo. 194, 523 P.2d 126 (1974); People v. Lucero, 182 Colo. 39, 511 P.2d 468 (1973). II. The defendant argues that the trial court erred when it failed to suppress the items seized as the result of the sea......
-
People v. Garcia, 89SA368
...prior record of providing reliable information. The total anonymity of the informant distinguishes this case from People v. Lucero, 182 Colo. 39, 511 P.2d 468 (1973). In Lucero, unidentified informants at the scene of an armed robbery spoke to police officers in person and described the get......
-
People v. Lewis, 82SA565
...(1968); People v. Johnson, 199 Colo. 68, 605 P.2d 46 (1980); People v. Martineau, 185 Colo. 194, 523 P.2d 126 (1974); People v. Lucero, 182 Colo. 39, 511 P.2d 468 (1973); Stone v. People, 174 Colo. 504, 485 P.2d 495 (1971). As we recently stated in People v. Tate, 657 P.2d 955, 958 "Three c......
-
State v. Anderson
...Cir., 1975); Hampton v. United States, 340 A.2d 813 (D.C.Cir., 1975); Commonwealth v. Jones, 457 Pa. 423, 322 A.2d 119; People v. Lucero, 182 Colo. 39, 511 P.2d 468. In the case before us, the robber was believed to have left the scene on foot and to be moving in a northerly direction. The ......
-
A Dui Primer
...and 42-4-1202.1. 4. Stone v. People, 485 P.2d 495 (Colo. 1971). 5. See, People v. Schreyer, 640 P.2d 1147 (Colo. 1982); People v. Lucero, 511 P.2d 468 (Colo. 1973); People v. Martineau, 523 P.2d 126 (Colo. 1974); People v. Montoya, 524 P.2d 76 (Colo. 1974); Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420......
-
Arrest, Search & Seizure: a General Overview
...76. Id. 77. United States v. Briddle, 436 F.2d 4 (8th Cir. 1970), cert. denied 401 U.S. 921. 78. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). 79. 182 Colo. 39, 511 P.2d 468 (1973). 80. People v. Stevens, 183 Colo. 399, 517 P.2d 1336 (1973); Stone v. People, 174 Colo. 504, 485 P.2d 495 (1971). 81. C.R.......
-
Probable Cause Based on Citizen, Anonymous, and Confidential Informants
...780 P.2d 552, 555 (Colo. 1989); People v. McPherson, 550 P.2d 311, 315 (Colo. 1976); Gates, supra, note 3. 43. People v. Lucero, 511 P.2d 468, 470 (Colo. 1973); supra, note 4 at 192. 44. Id. 45. Fortune, supra, note 13 at 1345-46; Saars, supra, note 5 at 626. 46. Gates, supra, note 3. 47. P......