People v. Weisenberger
| Decision Date | 17 December 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 25361,25361 |
| Citation | 516 P.2d 1128,183 Colo. 353 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stanley WEISENBERGER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Patricia W. Robb, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Rollie R. Rogers, Colorado State Public Defender, J. D. MacFarlane, Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Kenneth J. Russell, Mary G. Allen, Deputy State Public Defenders, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Appellant, Stanley Weisenberger, was convicted by a jury in the district court of Montrose County of possession of marijuana. We reverse the conviction.
During the afternoon of January 25, 1971, Sheriff Gilmore of Montrose County and four other officers went to the farm of appellant, armed with a warrant which authorized the search of the 'Residence of Stanley Weisenberger, Olathe, Colorado.' The warrant was served upon appellant and, while Sheriff Gilmore and two of the officers searched appellant's house, Undersheriff Weiszbrod and another officer searched some outbuildings, including a chicken house. No contraband was found in the house or the immediate outbuildings; however, a search of the chicken house uncovered three two-pound packages of marijuana, a number of plastic baggies containing marijuana, a wooden box containing marijuana seeds, tops and stems, and three pipes. Also found was a Samsonite case containing a set of postal scales.
Appellant filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence seized from the chicken house, upon the grounds that the affidavit was insufficient to authorize the issuance of the search warrant. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court concluded that '(t)he search warrant was issued on the basis of an affidavit of very doubtful validity since it failed to set out the corroborative evidence in the knowledge of the sheriff.' The court found, however, that the chicken house was not within the curtilage of the farm residence and the warrant did not apply to it. The court then concluded that the officers had probable cause to search the chicken house and that the warrantless search of the chicken house was not an unreasonable search. The motion to suppress the evidence seized was then denied. At trial, the motion to suppress was renewed and again denied.
The court's findings, in our view, do not recite sufficient facts and circumstances from which a reasonable inference might be drawn that appellant was secreting drugs in the outbuilding. Furthermore, assuming there was probable cause, there were no attendant exigent circumstances which might otherwise authorize a warrantless search in this case; as in the first instance, the officers felt compelled to obtain a warrant before undertaking their search of appellant's premises.
In our view the court's reliance on the curtilage doctrine was misplaced....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Sporleder
...People v. Bement, 193 Colo. 435, 567 P.2d 382 (1977); People v. Counterman, 192 Colo. 152, 556 P.2d 481 (1976); People v. Weisenberger, 183 Colo. 353, 516 P.2d 1128 (1973). In determining the legitimacy of the defendant's privacy expectation the appropriate inquiry is whether she expected t......
-
People v. Oates
...of privacy that society considers "reasonable." See People v. Becker, 188 Colo. 160, 533 P.2d 494 (1975); People v. Weisenberger, 183 Colo. 353, 516 P.2d 1128 (1973). The defendants here did not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy in the drums at the time Agent Surovec installed the......
-
People v. Pitman
...(Iowa 1988) (defendant had reasonable expectation of privacy in barn where it was locked and nailed shut); People v. Weisenberger, 183 Colo. 353, 355-56, 516 P.2d 1128, 1129 (1973) (fourth amendment protections applied to a chicken house located on the defendant's farm, where the structure ......
-
People v. Summit
...furthermore, has often given way to overzealous police practices which endanger the right of privacy. See, e.g., People v. Weisenberger, Colo. 516 P.2d 1128 (announced December 17, 1973). Then, too, we are all too well aware of the heavy burden that the court and prison officials must bear ......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law
...court must examine whether the defendant did in fact have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area. People v. Weisenberger, 183 Colo. 353, 355, 516 P.2d 1128, 1129 (1973) (whether or not defendant's chicken house considered "outside the curtilage," defendant had reasonable expectatio......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 1988 Update
...3d 910, 374 N.E.2d 1152 (1978) §5.19 People v. Wachter, 58 Cal. App. 3d 911, 130 Cal. Rptr. 279 (1976) § 7.6 (c) People v. Weisenberger, 183 Colo. 353, 516 P.2d 1128 (1973) § 1.3(b) People v. Whalen, 390 Mich. 672, 213 N.W.2d 116 (1973) § 5.8 People v. Whitaker, 64 N.Y.S.2d 347, 486 N.Y.2d ......
-
Section 7 SECURITY OF PERSON AND PROPERTY - SEARCHES - SEIZURES - WARRANTS.
...protected area where warrantless intrusions are forbidden under the federal and state constitutions. People v. Weisenberger, 183 Colo. 353, 516 P.2d 1128 (1973). Any governmental action intruding upon an activity or area in which one holds a legitimate expectation of privacy is a "search" t......