People v. Smith, 25103
| Decision Date | 21 June 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 25103,25103 |
| Citation | 175 Colo. 212,486 P.2d 8 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Earl SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Robert R. Gallagher, Jr., Dist. Atty., Eighteenth Judicial District, John A. Topolincki, Jr., Deputy Dist. Atty., Eighteenth Judicial District, Littleton, for plaintiff-appellee.
P. Arthur Tague, P.C., Littleton, for defendant-appellant.
This interlocutory appeal challenges the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress the results of an alcohol test of blood withdrawn from defendant's body without his consent.
Defendant, Donald Earl Smith, was charged in a criminal information with two felony counts of causing bodily injury by operating an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The trial court denied the motion. We affirm the ruling of the trial court.
At approximately 1:30 a.m. on August 8, 1970, Officer Miller of the Littleton police department observed an automobile proceeding at a high rate of speed in that suburban community. He gave chase and estimated the speed of the automobile to be in excess of eighty miles an hour. In the chase he temporarily lost sight of the automobile, but then, moments later, came upon the scene of an accident in which the same vehicle was involved. Smith was lying beneath the steering wheel of the overturned car. Officer Miller noted the odor of alcohol in the car and upon the person and breath of several occupants. He did not smell the odor on Smith's breath. He also found a partially empty jug of wine near the automobile.
The six people in the automobile were taken to a hospital for emergency treatment and observation. Officer Miller was apprehensive about ordering the withdrawal of a blood sample from Smith because he felt he needed Smith's consent to the procedure. He called the district attorney's office and two deputies came to the hospital. Statements were obtained from four of the occupants of the automobile. It was indicated that Smith was the driver, and one of the occupants stated Smith had been drinking wine. The duputy district attorneys advised Officer Miller to proceed with the blood alcohol test, and he then ordered the blood drawn. At 4:50 a.m. the blood sample in controversy was taken from Smith without his consent. Sometime prior to the bloodtaking, Smith had been advised of his rights, as required by the Miranda decision, and also of his rights under the Colorado implied consent law.
The trial court made extensive findings of fact which are amply supported by competent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Welsh v. Wisconsin
...the warrantless in-home arrest. See also, e.g., People v. Ritchie, 130 Cal.App.3d 455, 181 Cal.Rptr. 773 (1982); People v. Smith, 175 Colo. 212, 486 P.2d 8 (1971); State v. Findlay, 259 Iowa 733, 145 N.W.2d 650 (1966); State v. Amaniera, 132 N.J.Super. 597, 334 A.2d 398 (1974); State v. Osb......
-
Filmon v. State
...question, 'Who was driving?' instead of ordering that blood tests be done En masse on everybody in sight? See People v. Smith, 175 Colo. 212, 486 P.2d 8 (1971) (en banc) (statements taken from four occupants of automobile indicated that the accused was driving and therefore gave probable ca......
-
People v. Sutherland, 82SA373
...require only that there be probable cause to place the defendant under arrest before the blood sample is taken. See People v. Smith, 175 Colo. 212, 486 P.2d 8 (1971). The formal arrest of a defendant is not a prerequisite to the obtaining of a blood sample. In his treatise on search and sei......
-
People v. Williams
...present in those cases, the court has not had occasion to analyze the 'clear indication' standard. See, E.g., People v. Smith, 175 Colo. 212, 486 P.2d 8 (1971) (following serious auto accident, driver found unconscious with partially empty wine jug in car); People v. Kokesh, 175 Colo. 206, ......
-
ARTICLE 4 REGULATION OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC
...of motion to suppress results of alcohol blood test taken without consent as unlawful search and seizure affirmed. People v. Smith, 175 Colo. 212, 486 P.2d 8 (1971). Notice through publication of statutes is sufficient. The requirements of due process in relation to the warnings under subse......
-
Drunk Drivers and Blood Draws in Colorado
...820 P.2d 1160 (Colo.App. 1991). [52] Smith, 254 P.3d at 1162. [53] See People v. Licea, 918 P.2d 1109 (Colo. 1996). [54] People v. Smith, 486 P.2d 8 (Colo. 1971). [55] Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 770. [56] McNeely, 569 U.S. __(slip op. at 11). [57] Swingle and Thomasson, "Beam Me Up: Upgrading S......
-
Chapter 4 - § 4.5 • THE CHEMICAL TESTS
...This subsection provides that the results of such an involuntary test are admissible in DUI prosecutions. See People v. Smith, 486 P.2d 8 (Colo. 1971) (affirming denial of motion to suppress results of blood test taken without consent as unlawful search and seizure). However, the statutory ......