People v. Valdez
| Decision Date | 01 February 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 24905,24905 |
| Citation | 480 P.2d 574,173 Colo. 410 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David BALDEZ and Joseph A. Florez, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., James D. McKevitt, Jarvis W. Seccombe, Dist. Attys., Thomas, P. Casey, Deputy Dist. Atty., Gregory A Mueller, Asst. Dist. Atty., Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.
Ashen & Fogel, Marshall A. Fogel, Denver, for defendants-appellees.
the trial court ruling which granted the defendants' motions to suppress as evidence certain narcotics. These defendants are charged with possession of narcotic drugs and conspiracy to possess narcotic drugs. Their motions to suppress allege that the narcotics which they are charged with possessing came into police custody as a result of an unlawful search and seizure.
At the suppression hearing, the only evidence presented on behalf of the defendants was the testimony of defendant Florez. He testified that on May 24, 1970, the car which he was driving, and in which defendant Valdez was a passenger, was stopped by the police. No traffic offense was charged. However, both defendants were arrested for possession and conspiracy to possess narcotics.
With reference to the evidence sought to be suppressed, defendant Florez testified that after arrest, the police searched the area surrounding the car and found the narcotics which the defendants are charged with possessing. Defendant Florez in his testimony disclaimed any knowledge concerning this evidence. Implicit in this testimony is the fact that both defendants were arrested without warrants. Warrantless arrests are also clearly indicated from statements in the record made by counsel for the defendants and by the district attorney.
For reasons which are most difficult to understand, the district attorney saw fit to present no evidence whatsoever. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court in suppressing this evidence held that there 'is no probable cause established for the arrest of the defendants, and obviously, any search and seizure would be violative of the defendants' constitutional rights.' The court's ruling in effect states that the evidence here should be suppressed because it was seized incident to invalid arrests.
We affirm the ruling of the trial court. It is our holding that the evidence presented at the hearing was sufficient to show that each defendant was arrested without a warrant, and because no probable cause was shown by the People to validate these warrantless arrests, they must be adjudged unlawful. It therefore follows, as the trial court found, that any search and seizure incident to these arrests would be violative of the defendants' constitutional rights. The trial court therefore properly suppressed as evidence the narcotics which the defendants are charged with possessing.
In our view, this is a case involving burden of proof in a suppression hearing. we reject any suggestion that the issue here involves a question of the standing of the defendants to attack the legality of the arrests. As this case is postured, we can find no case law in Colorado which deals precisely with the relative burdens of proof or burdens of going forward in a suppression hearing involving evidence obtained after a warrantless arrest. Our research,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lee
...921 (1968).63 State v. Johnson, supra note 57.64 State v. Miller, 269 Or. 328, 524 P.2d 1399, 1402 (1974).65 See People v. Valdez, 173 Colo. 410, 480 P.2d 574, 575 (1971).66 Badillo v. Superior Court in and for the City and County of San Francisco, 46 Cal.2d 269, 294 P.2d 23 (1956).67 Id. 2......
-
People v. Moreno
...suppression hearing to show that the defendant was lawfully arrested. See People v. Feltch, Colo., 483 P.2d 1335 (1971); People v. Valdez, Colo., 480 P.2d 574 (1971). On remand, if the prosecution is unable to establish that exigent circumstances existed, supported by probable cause, the ar......
-
People v. Jansen
...or other evidence that the police officers did not have a warrant authorizing their actions satisfies that burden. See People v. Valdez, 173 Colo. 410, 480 P.2d 574 (1971). Once that threshold requirement is met, the burden of going forward then shifts to the prosecution. The burden of proo......
-
DeLaCruz v. People
...the burden of establishing that the arrest was supported by probable cause. People v. Feltch, Colo., 483 P.2d 1335 (1971); People v. Valdez, Colo., 480 P.2d 574 (1971). To justify the arrest, the prosecution called Officer Koncilja, who testified that just prior to the defendant's arrest he......