Oram v. People, 2011 WL 2150756

Oram and Weinstein, bonded agents, were sent by LaDonna's Bail Bonds to locate and arrest Vigil after a bond violation notice on Aug 2, 2004.
They received Vigil's file but lacked a current photo and had only a written description of Vigil.
Vigil's listed address was 1446 King Street; Vigil had not resided there since the early 1980s; residents at that address included Eugene Vigil’s family.
Oram and Weinstein surveilled the King Street Residence for about an hour and encountered Gina Vigil and others during entry.
Weinstein purportedly identified as law enforcement to the residents; Oram and Weinstein entered the home, restrained Martinez, and sought Vigil, later learning Vigil was in police custody.
Oram and Weinstein were convicted at trial of second degree burglary and felony menacing; on appeal, the issue was whether a common law bonding agent’s privilege survived in Colorado and related defenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the common law bonding agent’s privilege survive in Colorado?	Oram asserts the privilege allows entry.	Colorado has not codified the privilege; general statutes abrogate it.	The privilege does not survive; defense instruction was unnecessary and harmless.
Was there valid consent to enter the King Street Residence?	Vigil’s bond contract authorized entry by bondsmen.	Vigil lacked possessory/ownership interest and consent cannot extend beyond actual possessors.	No valid consent; trial court correctly rejected the consent instruction.
Was there sufficient evidence that Oram and Weinstein knowingly entered unlawfully?	They relied on a bonding privilege to justify entry.	Defense could negate the unlawfulness with privilege or consent.	There was sufficient evidence they knew entry was unlawful; case to jury.
Did the court err in admitting or formulating jury instructions on immunity and bonding privilege?	Privilege and immunity should be acknowledged.	No surviving privilege, so instructions were improper or unnecessary.	Instruction on privilege was harmless; immunity and related instructions properly rejected.

Taylor v. Taintor, 83 U.S. 366 (1872) (foundational statement of bonding agent's privilege; not Colorado law)
State v. Nugent, 508 A.2d 728 (Conn. 1986) (recognition of bonding agent's privilege in other jurisdictions)
State v. Burhans, 89 P.3d 629 (Kan. 2004) (state adoption of bonding agent concept in some jurisdictions)
State v. Tapia, 468 N.W.2d 342 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991) (analysis of bonding agent concept in another state)
People v. Hollenbeck, 944 P.2d 539 (Colo. App. 1990) (Colorado law on occupancy/consent as related to burglary)
People v. Holmes, 959 P.2d 406 (Colo. 1998) (Colo Supreme Court on scienter/knowingly standard)