People v. Arapu, 2012 CO 42

ICE agents sought Arapu; local APD assisted; Arapu consented to Detective Chi entering to monitor a woman inside and later to gather his keys, phones, and secure the apartment.
Detective Chi asked the woman for identifying information while she remained inside; another officer entered and observed a firearm, prompting photos of the firearm.
Detective Chi collected Arapu's keys and phones and, while preparing to leave, observed an open bag on the floor appearing to contain cocaine.
Arapu moved to suppress the evidence; the trial court suppressed both firearm and drug-related evidence, finding Chi exceeded scope and was unlawfully present.
Prosecution appeals; the Colorado Supreme Court reverses, holding consent to monitor the woman and to secure the apartment included remaining during federal investigation and observing the bag.
Court finds redacted affidavit sufficient for probable cause and that firearm evidence is admissible under independent source doctrine; suppression is reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of consent to enter	Arapu invited Chi to monitor Inozemtseva and to stay to secure the apartment.	Chi exceeded the narrow consent by asking for ID and remaining during investigation.	Consent encompassed monitoring and securing; no improper stay or questioning beyond scope.
Effect of remaining in apartment after arrest	Chi's presence to secure keys/phones and the apartment was within consent.	Staying during investigation exceeded consent and tainted observations.	Reasonable understanding of consent included remaining until investigators left; no exceedance.
Suppression of drug evidence	Chi's lawful presence when preparing to leave allowed seeing drugs; no suppression of drug evidence.	Unlawful presence tainted observations of the bag.	Drug evidence admissible because Chi was lawfully inside while preparing to leave and observed in scope.
Independent source for firearm evidence	Firearm could be admissible as independent of illegality if warrant supported by redacted facts.	Firearm observations were illegally obtained and should be suppressed.	Firearm admissible under independent source doctrine; warrant supported by redacted affidavit.

Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991) (scope of consent defined by reasonable understanding)
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (home searches without warrant generally unreasonable)
People v. Minor, 222 P.3d 952 (Colo.2010) (reviewing scope of consent as mixed fact/law)
People v. Olivas, 859 P.2d 211 (Colo.1993) (deference to trial court on factual findings; scope of consent)
People v. Hebert, 46 P.3d 473 (Colo.2002) (redacted affidavit standard for probable cause)
Morley v. Morley, 4 P.3d 1078 (Colo.2000) (independent source doctrine for evidence obtained after illegality)
Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988) (independent source admissibility when warrant would have been sought anyway)
United States v. Pena, 920 F.2d 1509 (10th Cir.1990) (scope of consent and objective reasonableness standard)