People v. Reyes, 25101
Decision Date | 26 April 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 25101,25101 |
Citation | 483 P.2d 1342,174 Colo 377 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jereniah REYES, also known as Jeremiah Reyes, also known as Jerry Reyes, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Carl Parlapiano, Dist. Atty., Cecil Turner, Chief Deputy Dist. Atty., Pueblo, for plaintiff-appellee.
Rollie R. Rogers, State Public Defender, Denver, R. D. Jorgensen, Deputy State Public Defender, Pueblo, for defendant-appellant.
This is a sequel to People v. Reyes, Colo., 477 P.2d 790. The defendant is appealing an order denying his motion to suppress certain evidentiary items recovered by the police pursuant to a consent search.
The trial judge conducted an evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress, took the matter under advisement, and thereafter entered an order denying the motion. However, the judge made no findings of fact upon which to base his ruling. Consequently, we remanded the cause to the trial court to determine the factual issues presented by the motion.
Upon remand, a different judge, in order to be able to weigh the testimony of the witnesses, conducted a new hearing rather than rely on the transcript of the first hearing. The same two witnesses who testified in the original hearing again testified. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the second judge made extensive and comprehensive findings of fact and entered an order denying the motion to suppress. We affirm that ruling.
The items in question were recovered by the police from an automobile owned by Julian Reyes, defendant's father, which had been used by the defendant on the night of the alleged commission of the rape with which the defendant is charged.
The defendant alleges error on the part of the trial court in denying his motion to suppress in three particulars:
1. Consent obtained by police for a search is not valid when obtained under color of law;
2. The consent of a juvenile to a search is invalid under Colorado Children's Code and the dictates of due process; and
3. The co-consent of a parent to a search is not valid where the parent did not understand the nature of the consent he gave and the possible consequences to his child's welfare.
We have reviewed the proceedings with full recognition of the requirement that the People must prove that consent was given; that there was no duress or coercion, expressed or implied; and that the consent was unequivocal and specific and freely and intelligently given. We recognize that the courts indulge every reasonable presumption against the waiver of fundamental constitutional rights, and this is especially true where as here the defendant is under arrest. Villano v. United States, 310 F.2d 680 (10th Cir.); United States v. Page, 302 F.2d 81 (9th Cir.).
The first assignment of error is based upon the fact that a police officer advised the father and the defendant that a search warrant could be obtained if the defendant's father did not sign the consent form. In other words, it is contended that the representation constituted coercion.
The trial court made comprehensive findings of fact. Although these are pertinent to the three assignments of error, they are set forth in full here. The court found that,
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Dandrea, 86SA98
...409 (1973), with the exception of consent searches, which are specifically addressed elsewhere in the Children's Code. People v. Reyes, 174 Colo. 377, 483 P.2d 1342 (1971).2 The following states have adopted versions of the Act: Alaska, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Rh......
-
People v. K.N.
...of time for NYS legislators to explicitly remedy this omission.7 These states include Colorado and Arkansas (see People v. Reyes, 174 Colo. 377, 483 P.2d 1342, 1344 (1971) ; see also Ark. R. Crim. P. 11.2(a).8 See Jay Stanley, ACLU, The Police Want Your DNA to Prove You're Innocent. Do You ......
-
People v. Hayhurst
...indispensable in all cases. See also People v. Hancock, supra; Massey v. People, 179 Colo. 167, 498 P.2d 953 (1972); People v. Reyes, 174 Colo. 377, 483 P.2d 1342 (1971); Capps v. People, supra. Cf. People v. Sanchez, 184 Colo. 25, 518 P.2d 818 The United States Supreme Court 3 and many sta......
-
People v. Pearson
...the defendant with the possibility of obtaining a warrant. See e.g., People v. Hancock, Colo., 525 P.2d 435 (1974); People v. Reyes, 174 Colo. 377, 483 P.2d 1342 (1971). Under such circumstances, the defendant cannot prevail on the assertion that his consent to the search of his motel room ......
-
The Consent Exception to the Warrant Requirement
...852 P.2d 467 (Colo. 1993). 17. People v. Thomas, 853 P.2d 1147 (Colo. 1993). 18. 793 P.2d 1181 (Colo. 1990). 19. People v. Reyes, 483 P.2d 1342 (Colo. 1971). 20. Supra, note 17. 21. People v. Hampton, 758 P.2d 1344 (Colo. 1988). 22. 412 U.S. 218 (1973). 23. Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S......