People v. Royse, 24818
| Decision Date | 07 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 24818,24818 |
| Citation | 173 Colo. 254,477 P.2d 380 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David ROYSE and Daniel John O'Hare, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Denver, Robert L. Russel, Dist. Atty., Colorado Springs, for plaintiff-appellee.
Daniel B. Mohler and Thomas C. Donovan, Jr., Colorado Springs, for defendants-appellants.
This is an interlocutory appeal of the trial court's denial of the defendant-appellants' motions to suppress evidence on the grounds of an alleged unlawful search and seizure of eighteen items, including suspected dangerous drugs and narcotics, from an apartment in Colorado Springs.
This search and seizure was made pursuant to a search warrant which specified the address of the place to be searched as '3043 East Fountain apt. #305' Colorado Springs, Colorado. The supporting affidavit by a police officer also set forth this address. The search and seizure took place at 3043 Mallard Drive, Apartment 305, Colorado Springs, Colorado, which is the address of one of nine apartment buildings, all collectively known as the Normandy Apartments. The defendant-appellants, both of whom are charged with narcotic offenses, were tenants of the apartment unit but were not present at the time of the search and seizure.
The wrong address on the search warrant was furnished by the policy officer who had been conducting a surveillance of the apartment which was searched. He erroneously assumed the address of the apartment to be on East Fountain Boulevard because the yellow pages of the telephone book listed the address of the Normandy Apartments as '3000 E. Fountain Blvd. (at Mallard Dr.).' The fact that the search warrant contained the wrong address did not become known to the police officer until after the search and seizure was made. A map showing the locations of the nine buildings, which comprise the Normandy Apartments, was introduced in evidence. This exhibit graphically demonstrates that the building containing the apartment unit searched is on Mallard Drive.
The arguments advanced by the district attorney on behalf of appellee in support of the trial court's ruling which validated this search warrant as permitting this search and seizure are rejected. This search and the resulting seizure at 3043 Mallard Drive, Apartment 305, Colorado Springs, Colorado, was clearly unlawful under this warrant and the trial court erred in not suppressing the evidence. We therefore reverse the ruling of the trial court and direct the entry of orders granting the motions to suppress.
A search warrant must describe with particularity the place to be searched. This is an elemental requirement. Crim.P. 41(c) provides in part that a search warrant shall command the officer to search forthwith...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greenstreet v. State
...394 F.3d 222 (4th Cir.), rev'd on other grounds, 544 U.S. 1047, 125 S.Ct. 2308, 161 L.Ed.2d 1086 (2005); see also People v. Royse, 173 Colo. 254, 477 P.2d 380 (.1970) ("Since only a judicial officer may issue a search warrant, it necessarily follows that only a judicial officer may alter, m......
-
Sadie v. State
...is, in effect, a search without a warrant." Finch v. State, 479 So.2d 1314, 1320 (Ala.Cr.App.1985) (quoting People v. Royse, 173 Colo. 254, 256, 477 P.2d 380, 380 (1970)). Accordingly, the search is presumed to be unreasonable. "[S]earches conducted outside the judicial process, without pri......
-
State v. Smith
...in this state and I foresee trouble in its application, if not tumult. For cases supporting my viewpoint, see People v. Royse, 173 Colo. 254, 256, 477 P.2d 380, 381 (1970); State v. Lee, 247 La. 553, 172 So.2d 678 (1965); United States v. Diange, 32 F.Supp. 994 (W.D.Pa.1940); Bryson v. Stat......
-
82 Hawai'i 162, State v. Matsunaga
...241 (1992). A search of a place not described in a search warrant amounts to a warrantless search and is unlawful. People v. Royse, 173 Colo. 254, 477 P.2d 380, 381 (1970). However, "[a]reas adjacent to a place described in a warrant, that are under a suspect's exclusive management, control......
-
Arrest, Search & Seizure: a General Overview
...59. Steele v. United States, 267 U.S. 498 (1925). 60. 173 Colo. 315, 478 P.2d 310 (1970). 61. Id. at 319. See also People v. Royse, 1911 173 Colo. 254, 477 P.2d 380 62. Regendorf v. United States, 376 U.S. 528 (1964). 63. Steele v. United States, supra, note 59; People v. Benson, 176 Colo. ......