People v. Teague, 24940

Decision Date16 November 1970
Docket NumberNo. 24940,24940
Citation476 P.2d 751,173 Colo. 120
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leonard TEAGUE and James Hoskins, Defendants-Appellants.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

Robert R. Gallagher, Jr., Dist. Atty., Littleton, for plaintiff-appellee.

Charles E. McCarthy, Limon, for defendants-appellants.

PRINGLE, Chief Justice.

This Interlocutory Appeal is brought on behalf of Leonard Teague and James Hoskins from an order denying suppression of evidence seized at the time of their arrest. They will be referred to as the defendants or by name where necessary.

At 4:30 a.m. on April 9, 1970, Town Marshall Thelan of Hugo, Colorado was on patrol. From his position, he could observe all traffic coming into town on Highway 109. He noticed defendants' truck about two blocks away, but had not seen the defendants drive into town. When the truck ran a stop sign, Marshall Thelan ordered it to be pulled over. He noticed that the truck had license plates from another county, and that it had a power endgate. He knew from personal knowledge that two burglaries had taken place in the past two years at an electric company in the area from which defendants had come.

Defendant Teague, who was driving the truck, got out and came back to meet Thelan. Thelan asked to see his driver's license and registration which Teague produced. Thelan then, as was his practice when he stopped a vehicle, went to check the safety inspection sticker.

As he walked towards the front of the truck to do so, Thelan shone his flashlight into the bed of the truck through a crack between the tailgate and the bed. He immediately noticed copper wiring along with several power transformers. He asked Teague where he had gotten them, and was told they were purchased, but that Teague did not remember where. He then approached Hoskins in the passenger seat from whom he got the same response. Marshall Thelan then explained to both defendants that he was going to let them go, but would himself go to the K. C. Electric Co. and determine if it had been burglarized.

A short inspection of the electric company indicated that there in fact had been a burglary, whereupon Thelan radioed for help and finally apprehended the defendants. At this time they were placed under arrest.

Defendants raise three points of error on this appeal, namely: (1) that the Marshall had no probable cause to stop them; (2) that the Marshall, having stopped them without probable cause, cannot now be heard to say he discovered this evidence by casual observation; and (3) that any evidence obtained by casual observation is admissible only if the officer had a legal right to be where he was. We find no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • People v. Henry
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • 4 d2 Agosto d2 1981
    ...in observing objects lying inside the vehicle. See also, e. g., People v. Haggart, 188 Colo. 164, 533 P.2d 488 (1975); People v. Teague, 173 Colo. 120, 476 P.2d 751 (1970). Seeing a revolver inside the car under such circumstances provides justification for its immediate seizure in the inte......
  • People v. Waits, 27890
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • 26 d1 Junho d1 1978
    ...(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 (1970). People v. Apodaca, supra, upon which the appellee relies for his contention, involved a special fact situation and is inap......
  • People v. Mangum, 26803
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • 18 d1 Agosto d1 1975
    ...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 (1970). III. While the defendants do not dispute the fact that the items were in plain view, they challenge the seizure of the e......
  • People v. Haggart, 26078
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • 31 d1 Março d1 1975
    ...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 view doctrine. Coolidge, supra; Ramey, The defendant next su......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT