2018 COA 109
Colo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Law enforcement executed a search warrant at a Montezuma County farm while the owner was absent; Gregory Boudette was the caretaker living on the premises.
- The warrant authorized seizure of items related to an alleged marijuana operation (phones, computers, cash, records, etc.).
- Officers allegedly seized items belonging to Boudette: cellphone, computer, notebooks, antique muskets, vehicle titles, foreign currency, and passport.
- No criminal charges were ever filed against Boudette.
- Boudette filed a Crim. P. 41(e) motion in district court seeking return of unlawfully seized property, alleging warrant defects and lack of probable cause.
- The district court dismissed the motion sua sponte for lack of standing; the court of appeals reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a person whose property was seized but who was not charged has standing under Colo. Crim. P. 41(e) to seek return of property | Boudette: Crim. P. 41(e) allows a “person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure” to move for return of property, so he has standing despite no criminal charge | District court: Rules of Criminal Procedure govern criminal proceedings; because Boudette has no criminal case, he lacks standing under Crim. P. 41 | Court held Boudette has standing under Crim. P. 41(e); the rule’s plain language permits any person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure to move for return of property |
| Whether Crim. P. 41 applies before a criminal complaint/information is filed | Boudette: Rule 41 and related criminal rules contemplate proceedings occurring before formal charging; the rule does not require defendant status | Implicitly, the district court reasoned Crim. P. 41 applies to criminal proceedings and thus to charged defendants only | Court held Crim. P. 41 applies to motions for return of property even when no criminal charges are filed; the Rules encompass pre-charge proceedings and the rule’s language is not limited to criminal defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Ainscough v. Owens, 90 P.3d 851 (Colo. 2004) (standing requires injury-in-fact and legally protected interest)
- Vigil v. Franklin, 103 P.3d 322 (Colo. 2004) (interpretation of procedural rules follows statutory-construction principles)
- Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, L.L.C. v. Flood, 278 P.3d 348 (Colo. 2012) (procedural-rule construction reviewed de novo)