People v. Ramey
| Decision Date | 12 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 25019 and 25050,s. 25019 and 25050 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Ray RAMEY, a/k/a Richard Ramey and Robert Joseph Wirtz, a/k/a Robt. Wirtz, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Carl Parlapiano. Dist. Atty., Gordon R. Cooper, Asst. Dist. Atty., Pueblo, for plaintiff-appellee.
Gerash & Kaiser, Denver, Bellinger, Faricy, Tursi & O'Callaghan, Dale P. Tursi, Pueblo, for defendants-appellants.
There are involved here two interlocutory appeals of which we make disposition in one opinion. We refer to the first numbered matter as Case A and the second as Case B. In Case A the defendants stand indicated of burglary, theft and conspiracy to commit burglary. In Case B the same defendants are under indictment for the same felonies, but different premises and property are involved. The property alleged to be stolen in each case was obtained in the same search. In separate hearings before different judges of the district court of Pueblo County the defendants' motions to suppress were denied. We affirm these rulings.
The testimony at the two hearings concerning the arrest of the defendants and the search of an automobile used by them is the same in all material respects.
The residences of Donald Erskine and Neal Anderson in Pueblo have abutting backyards. At about 7:30 one evening, Mr. Erskine observed two men at the back door of the Anderson residence, one of whom was bent down over the doorknob. These men observed Mr. Erskine and one 'hollered over' inquiring as to whether 'these folks' were out of town. Mr. Erskine replied that he was not sure and one of the men responded, 'I'll be darned, we were suppose to meet 'em here.' The two men departed. These men wore dark top coats. Mr. Anderson estimated one to be 5 7 in height and the other to be about 'a head taller.'
The Andersons, who had been out of town, arrived home shortly after these events. Mr. Erskine immediately notified them of the occurrence, and in turn the Pueblo police were advised of the incident and a description of the men given to them.
The rear yard of the Anderson premises is enclosed by a fence. There was a gate in the fence at one of the rear corners of the house affording entry to the yard and back door. The earth near the gate was moist and soft. An investigative officer came to the Anderson residence shortly following the report to the police. He and Mr. Anderson found two sets of footprints entering and leaving the yard. In the heel portion of one was the clear imprint 'Florsheim.'
All the information available was broadcast on the police radio, as was information of an earlier burglary in which jewelry and a radio were taken. Shortly after 10:00 p.m. that evening the investigating officer and another officer noticed the defendants on foot about two blocks from the Anderson residence. The defendants met the description given by Mr. Erskine. The officers approached the defendants and asked to examine the bottoms of their shoes. It was apparent to the officers that the heel of one of the shoes had made the 'Florsheim' footprint. The officers frisked the defendants, finding items that might be used in a burglary. They inquired of the defendants as to what they were doing, and were advised that the defendants' automobile, which was parked a short distance away, had broken down and that they were proceeding to a service station. The officers arrested the defendants.
One of the officers then flashed a light into the indicated car, seeing in plain view on the back seat two open paper sacks, containing, among other things, jewelry and a radio. When one of the officers opened the front door of the vehicle to remove the keys, he observed a sack of coins. The contents of the sacks are the alleged stolen property of one case and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Waits, 27890
...supra; People v. Haggart, 188 Colo. 164, 533 P.2d 488 (1975); People v. Shriver, 186 Colo. 405, 528 P.2d 242 (1974); People v. Ramey, 174 Colo. 250, 483 P.2d 374 (1971); People v. Teague,173 Colo. 120, 476 P.2d 751 People v. Apodaca, supra, upon which the appellee relies for his contention,......
-
People v. Mangum, 26803
...would serve no purpose. People v. Haggart, Colo., 533 P.2d 488 (1975); People v. Shriver, Colo., 528 P.2d 242 (1974); People v. Ramey, 174 Colo. 250, 483 P.2d 374 (1971); People v. Teague, 173 Colo. 120, 476 P.2d 751 While the defendants do not dispute the fact that the items were in plain ......
-
People v. Haggart, 26078
...police officer to look inside a car, nor to use a flashlight to do so. People v. Shriver, Colo., 528 P.2d 242 (1974); People v. Ramey, 174 Colo. 250, 483 P.2d 374 (1971); People v. Teague, 173 Colo. 120, 476 P.2d 751 (1970). The incriminating tag was seen and could be seized under the plain......
-
People v. Roybal
...for the arrest with regard to one of its fruits, and no probable cause for the same arrest with regard to another. See People v. Ramey, 174 Colo. 250, 483 P.2d 374 (1971). The trial court intelligently complied with our mandate. See People ex rel. Warren v. Carpenter, 29 Colo. 365, 68 P. 22......
-
THE COLORADO APPELLATE RULES
...the findings in the second case as governing the first case. It would be useless to remand the first case for findings. People v. Ramey, 174 Colo. 250, 483 P.2d 374 (1971). Applied in People v. McGahey, 179 Colo. 401, 500 P.2d 977 (1972); People v. District Court, 196 Colo. 401, 586 P.2d 31......
-
Section 7 SECURITY OF PERSON AND PROPERTY - SEARCHES - SEIZURES - WARRANTS.
...Herrera, 633 P.2d 1091 (Colo. App. 1981). Probable cause found. People v. Bengston, 174 Colo. 131, 482 P.2d 989 (1971); People v. Ramey, 174 Colo. 250, 483 P.2d 374 (1971); People v. Barnes, 174 Colo. 531, 484 P.2d 1233 (1971); People v. Olson, 175 Colo. 140, 485 P.2d 891 (1971); People v. ......
-
Rule 4.1 INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS IN CRIMINAL CASES.
...the findings in the second case as governing the first case. It would be useless to remand the first case for findings. People v. Ramey, 174 Colo. 250, 483 P.2d 374 (1971). Applied in People v. McGahey, 179 Colo. 401, 500 P.2d 977 (1972); People v. District Court, 196 Colo. 401, 586 P.2d 31......