People v. Camarigg
2017 COA 115
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Michael Camarigg was arrested for DUI at a gas station; officers decided to impound his Jeep because it blocked a pump and no one competent to move it remained on scene.
- Police conducted an inventory search of the impounded Jeep and found a sealed USPS box containing drain cleaner, leaking hydrochloric acid, a glass beaker, and pH strips; other items (gas can, transmission fluid with tubing) were found in the cargo area.
- A hazmat team evaluated the vehicle (not an active meth lab); officers later obtained a warrant based on items found and discovered additional meth‑manufacturing supplies.
- Camarigg was charged and convicted by a jury of DUI, careless driving, and possession of chemicals/supplies with intent to manufacture methamphetamine.
- At trial, Camarigg moved to suppress evidence from the inventory search and the subsequent warrant, arguing impoundment and the search were unreasonable and pretextual; the trial court denied suppression.
- He also challenged a prosecutor’s closing‑argument puzzle analogy as lowering the reasonable‑doubt burden and contested sufficiency of evidence for intent to manufacture; the court rejected these claims and the convictions were affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Camarigg’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of impound and inventory search | Impoundment was reasonable for public safety and property protection; inventory policy justified opening containers | Impoundment was unnecessary (other options existed) and opening sealed containers exceeded policy and was pretextual | Impoundment and inventory search were objectively reasonable and non‑pretextual; suppression denied |
| Whether inventory policy limited discretion | Policy required inventory of all compartments and allowed opening containers unless damage risk outweighed protection | Policy allowed unlawful general rummaging because it left too much officer discretion | Policy and officer conduct satisfied the standardized‑procedure requirement; opening box was permitted |
| Prosecutorial misconduct — puzzle analogy | Analogy explained how circumstantial evidence fits together and distinguished beyond reasonable doubt from beyond all doubt | Analogy improperly quantified/reduced reasonable‑doubt standard | Even if problematic, the analogy did not affect the verdict; any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Sufficiency of evidence for intent to manufacture | Circumstantial evidence (items together, suspicious mailing, proximity, attempts to keep officers away) supports intent | Items were innocuous/legitimate, no proof defendant knew contents or how to make meth | Viewed favorably to the prosecution, circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support conviction for intent |
Key Cases Cited
- Pineda v. People, 230 P.3d 1181 (Colo. 2010) (inventory searches protect property, guard against claims, and protect police safety)
- Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (1990) (inventory policies must be standardized to avoid general rummaging)
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987) (officer discretion in inventory searches is permissible if exercised under standard criteria unrelated to suspicion)
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) (police may search impounded vehicles for protection of their own safety and the property)
- People v. Santana, 255 P.3d 1126 (Colo. 2011) (prosecutor may legitimately tie together circumstantial evidence in rebuttal to defense arguments)
- United States v. Pungitore, 910 F.2d 1084 (3d Cir. 1990) (puzzle analogy that suggests a quantitative measure of reasonable doubt is improper)