People v. Ramos
| Citation | 2022 CO 16 |
| Decision Date | 11 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | 22SA10 |
| Parties | The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Joe Lewis Ramos. Defendant-Appellee |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Interlocutory Appeal from the District Court Weld County District Court Case No. 20CR1319 Honorable Marcelo Kopcow Judge
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant: Michael J. Rourke District Attorney, Nineteenth Judicial District Arynn E. Clark, Deputy District Attorney Greeley, Colorado
Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee: Megan A. Ring, Public Defender Allison Belfield, Deputy Public Defender Ashley E. Sullivan, Deputy Public Defender Greeley, Colorado
¶1 We can-and do-dispense with this interlocutory appeal in short order. The People ask us to reverse the trial court's suppression order and remand the case to allow them to make additional arguments supporting the warrantless seizure of Joe Ramos's cell phone on the theory that they did not have specific notice that the seizure of the phone was at issue. Because the record belies this assertion, we affirm the trial court's order.
¶2 On July 8, 2019, the Greeley Police Department received an anonymous tip that Ramos possessed child pornography on his cell phone. After finding two unrelated outstanding warrants for Ramos, the police went to his residence to execute those warrants and follow up on the anonymous tip. While they did not make contact with Ramos himself, the officers observed cell phones on a table in the backyard. One of the detectives called the number that the tipster said was associated with Ramos's phone. When one of the phones on the table rang the officers seized the phone and took it into custody. The officers did not have a warrant to seize the phone.
¶3 Ramos was ultimately arrested and charged with numerous counts, including possession of child pornography. During pretrial proceedings, he filed various motions to suppress evidence taken from his phone. Relevant here is Defense Motion #6: Motion to Suppress Evidence, Observations, and Statements Obtained from Warrantless Search and Seizure, which alleged that the officers had "unlawfully seized" Ramos's cell phone and that "all statements, observations and evidence obtained as a result of the unlawful seizure must be suppressed."
¶4 The trial court held two days of hearings on the various pretrial motions, one on November 22, 2021, and the second on December 14, 2021. At the December 14 hearing, the court directed the parties, in the interest of time, to file simultaneous briefing on any outstanding issues. Both the parties and the court referenced suppression of evidence as an outstanding issue. The People now contend, however, that they were not on sufficient notice that they should have briefed the question of whether the warrantless seizure of the phone was justified.
¶5 This contention cannot withstand the weight of the record. Ramos's pretrial motion specifically referenced the warrantless seizure of the phone. During the December 14 hearing, defense counsel questioned one of the detectives about the fact that the phone had been seized without a warrant. And at the close of that hearing, the court stated that The People responded, "that's the one thing that we would definitely need to provide written argument on." (Emphasis added.)
¶6 The United States and Colorado constitutions protect individuals from unreasonable...
To continue reading
Request your trial