20SC717- McBride v. People, 2022 CO 30

Deputies following a Lincoln Town Car observed damaged tail lamps with red tape that had melted, allowing "some white light" to emit; one deputy also observed a failure to signal.
A marked unit stopped the vehicle; dispatch run revealed an outstanding warrant for McBride, who was arrested; a drug-detection dog alerted and officers found methamphetamine and a handgun.
McBride was charged with, inter alia, a tail lamp violation under § 42-4-206(1) and moved to suppress evidence arguing the stop lacked reasonable suspicion because the statute requires a tail lamp to emit a red light plainly visible at 500 feet (not that it emit only red light).
At trial deputies testified the tail lamps were emitting white light and photos showed melted red tape; no witness testified that red light was not plainly visible at 500 feet. The jury convicted McBride of the tail lamp offense (and POWPO) but acquitted on possession; the COA affirmed the tail lamp conviction, construing the statute to require tail lamps to emit only red light.
The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari, held the statute plain and unambiguous: it requires a red light to be plainly visible from 500 feet but does not mandate that tail lamps "only" emit red light; because the prosecution failed to prove red light was not plainly visible at 500 feet, the tail lamp conviction was reversed and the case remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 42-4-206(1) require tail lamps to emit only red light?	People: "red" means only red; allowing other colors undermines uniformity and safety.	McBride: statute requires a red light plainly visible at 500 ft; it does not say "only" red.	Court: Statute plain — requires a red light plainly visible at 500 ft; does not require tail lamps to emit only red light.
Was the evidence sufficient to prove a tail lamp violation?	People: deputies saw white light and damaged lamps/tape, supporting conviction.	McBride: no testimony that red light was not plainly visible at 500 ft; photos do not prove lack of red visibility.	Court: Insufficient evidence; conviction reversed.
Did the observed tail-lamp condition supply reasonable suspicion for the stop?	People: broken/malformed tail lights justify investigatory stop.	McBride: absent proof red not plainly visible, no statutory violation to justify stop.	Court: Because the tail-lamp element was not proven, the stop lacked support from that alleged violation (tail-lamp-based suspicion insufficient).
Should statutory context/policy force a narrower construction ("red only")?	People: uniform color rules in the traffic code support a "red only" reading to promote safety.	McBride: textual reading controls; adding "only" would permit arbitrary stops and burden low-income drivers.	Court: Rejected policy as a basis to add words; textual reading controls, though dissent would favor "red only" for uniformity.

People v. Brant, 252 P.3d 459 (Colo. 2011) (noting driving with a broken taillight can justify an investigatory stop)
McCoy v. People, 442 P.3d 379 (Colo. 2019) (standards for statutory construction and review)
People v. McBride, 490 P.3d 810 (Colo. App. 2020) (court of appeals decision adopting a "red means only red" construction)
People v. Donald, 461 P.3d 4 (Colo. 2020) (limits on permissible inferences for sufficiency review)
People v. Perez, 367 P.3d 695 (Colo. 2016) (reasonable-inference standard for supporting convictions)
Kroft v. State, 992 N.E.2d 818 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (construction rejecting a "only red" requirement where statute required a red light be plainly visible)
Vicknair v. State, 670 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App. 1983) (holding cracked lens showing white light does not prove red light not plainly visible)