Zamora v. State, Dept. of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Division, 80CA0187
| Decision Date | 21 August 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 80CA0187,80CA0187 |
| Citation | 616 P.2d 1003 |
| Parties | Gary Lee ZAMORA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE of Colorado, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION, Defendant-Appellant. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
No appearance for plaintiff-appellee.
J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary J Mullarkey, Sol. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant appeals the judgment of the district court reversing the revocation of the plaintiff's driver's license which revocation was premised on plaintiff's refusal to submit to an alcohol determination test pursuant to the implied consent law.
The sole issue on this appeal concerns the trial court finding that there was insufficient evidence to give the arresting officer reasonable grounds to believe that plaintiff had been driving a vehicle prior to the implied consent request. At the administrative hearing, the only evidence on this issue was the testimony of agent Greene. Greene testified that when he arrived at the scene of an auto accident, he was advised by another officer, agent Morelli, that she suspected that plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol. Agent Morelli told agent Greene that she did not witness the accident, but that an unidentified witness had told her that plaintiff was the driver of the car involved in the accident. At that time plaintiff was seated in the back seat of agent Morelli's vehicle. Agent Greene then administered a field sobriety test to plaintiff which he failed, and plaintiff was taken into custody. Plaintiff was advised pursuant to the implied consent law, and he refused to submit to any test.
Section 42-4-1202(3)(e), C.R.S.1973, provides that: "(A)t such hearing, it shall first be determined whether the officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the said person was driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of, or impaired by, alcohol."
Defendant contends that sufficient evidence exists in the record to support the hearing officer's determination that agent Greene had reasonable grounds to believe that plaintiff was driving based upon the "fellow officer rule". We disagree.
In People v. Nanes, 174 Colo. 294, 483 P.2d 958 (1971), the court equated the terms "reasonable grounds" and "probable cause", and, quoting People v. Smith, 31 A.D.2d 863, 297 N.Y.S.2d 225 (1969), stated: " 'It is not necessary for the arresting officer to . . . be, himself, in possession...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colorado Dept. of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Div. v. Kirke
...license revocation hearing issues, and requires case-by-case evaluation of the relevant facts and circumstances. Zamora v. Department of Rev., 616 P.2d 1003 (Colo.App.1980). To determine whether the hearing officer erred in revoking Kirke's driver's license, we must decide whether the heari......
-
People v. Dwire
...P.2d 711 (1971), the court held that a citizen informer who is named and identified is inherently reliable. See Zamora v. Motor Vehicle Division, Colo.App., 616 P.2d 1003 (1980). Defendant contends that the police report identifying the informant is inadmissible hearsay and was only admitte......
-
State, Dept. of Revenue and Taxation v. Hull
...license revocation hearing issues, and requires case-by-case evaluation of the relevant facts and circumstances. Zamora v. Department of Rev., 616 P.2d 1003 (Colo.App.1980)." Colorado Department of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Division v. Kirke, supra, 743 P.2d at See also Annot., 88 A.L.R.2d 106......
-
ARTICLE 4 REGULATION OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC
...Nix v. Tice, 44 Colo. App. 42, 607 P.2d 399 (1980); Harris v. Charnes, 616 P.2d 996 (Colo. App. 1980); Zamora v. State Dept. of Rev., 616 P.2d 1003 (Colo. App. 1980); People v. Ensor, 632 P.2d 641 (Colo. App. 1981); People v. Beltran, 634 P.2d 1003 (Colo. App. 1981); Zoske v. People, 625 P.......