People v. Trujillo
| Decision Date | 18 September 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 25548,25548 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Henry Ronald TRUJILLO, Defendant-Appellee. . En Banc |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Carl Parlapiano, Dist. Atty., Daniel J. Sears, Deputy Dist. Atty., Pueblo, for plaintiff-appellant.
Rollie R. Rogers, State Public Defender, J. D. MacFarlane, Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Darol C. Biddle, Deputy State Public Defender, for defendant-appellee.
This is an interlocutory appeal. Pending trial on a charge of burglary, defendant Trujillo filed a motion for suppression of physical evidence obtained from searches made after defendant's arrest without a warrant. After a hearing, the trial court granted the motion. The district attorney on behalf of the People appeal. We affirm the trial court's ruling.
The defendant was arrested on the basis of an informant's tip. According to Police Officer Koncilja's testimony, an informant called him to state that 'within the past few minutes' he saw a portable T.V. color set in the trunk of a 1967 white Pontiac sedan. The driver of the sedan, one Frank Perez, and the defendant, allegedly told the informant that the T.V. set had just been 'scored,' and they offered to sell it to the informant. Testimony by the police officer indicates that in criminal parlance 'scored' means stolen. As to the informant's reliability, it was testified that on six previous occasions this informant furnished information upon which convictions were predicated.
Within thirty minutes, the officer observed the white sedan which was owned and being driven by Perez. The defendant was a passenger. Both were arrested without a warrant and a subsequent search of the trunk disclosed not a portable but a floor model color T.V. set with 4 to 6 inch legs. It was later reported to the police that such a T.V. set had been stolen.
At the police station when the defendant was about to be searched, he raised one leg of his pants and a small gun was noted in the top of his boots. The gun was seized. It appears that this gun is the critical item of evidence in support of the burglary charge against the defendant.
The district attorney contends that probable cause for the defendant's warrantless arrest was established; that the search and seizures were incident to this arrest; and that therefore the trial court's suppression of the evidence was erroneous. In this regard, the district attorney maintains that the People's evidence regarding the reliability of the informant and the underlying circumstances in support of the informant's information fulfilled the requirements of Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Glasener
...The prerogative for deciding whether or not probable cause was established is within the domain of the trial judge. People v. Trujillo, 179 Colo. 428, 500 P.2d 1176 (1972); See also United States v. Rahn, 511 F.2d 290 (10th Cir. 1975). Unless the trial judge has abused his prerogative, this......
- City of Boulder v. Regents of University of Colo.
-
People v. Ellis, 26785
...whether the information and statements in the affidavit are in fact trustworthy and correct. Crim.P. 41(e); Cf. People v. Trujillo, 179 Colo. 428, 500 P.2d 1176 (1972); People v. Massey, 178 Colo. 141, 495 P.2d 1141 In the instant case, the trial court was confronted with contradictory test......
-
People v. Huffman, 26875
...court's findings are not properly supported. Under these circumstances, its findings will not be disturbed. See People v. Trujillo, 179 Colo. 428, 500 P.2d 1176 (1972) and People v. Barnes, 174 Colo. 531, 484 P.2d 1233 On appeal, the People do not rely heavily upon the argument that the sea......