People v. Cooper
2016 CO 73
| Colo. | 2016Background
- On September 29, 2015, officers obtained and executed a search warrant for Lonnie Cooper’s residence and vehicles for drugs and drug-related items; contraband and weapons were seized.
- The warrant affidavit relied primarily on a confidential informant who said he had purchased heroin and methamphetamine from Cooper at the residence on multiple occasions and described how Cooper stored and dispensed drugs.
- The affidavit also referenced intelligence from other operations linking Cooper to drug sales and an arrest of a separate party who said he bought methamphetamine from Cooper.
- The affidavit did not include specific dates for alleged purchases or sightings, raising concerns about staleness.
- Cooper moved to suppress the evidence, and the trial court granted suppression, finding the affidavit insufficient and stale.
- The State appealed interlocutorily; the Colorado Supreme Court considered whether the good-faith exception salvaged the search despite potential staleness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrant affidavit supplied current probable cause given lack of specific dates | The State: affidavit showed an ongoing drug operation (multiple purchases, storage at home/vehicles, corroboration), so information supported probable cause | Cooper: affidavit was stale and ‘‘bare bones’’—absence of dates meant no current nexus to the place searched | The court did not decide definitively whether probable cause existed; instead held that an objectively reasonable officer could rely on the affidavit in good faith given indicia of an ongoing operation |
| Whether the good-faith exception applies when a warrant may be stale | The State: even if affidavit was stale, §16-3-308(4) and Leon’s good-faith exception permit admission because officers reasonably relied on the signed warrant | Cooper: no reasonable officer could rely on a warrant founded on stale or bare-bones information | Held: Good-faith exception applies; officers’ reliance was objectively reasonable, so suppression reversed |
| Whether this affidavit is a “bare bones” affidavit that defeats good faith | The State: affidavit contained corroboration and repeated purchases—not bare bones | Cooper: lack of dates and detail renders it bare bones | Held: affidavit was not so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to make reliance entirely unreasonable |
| Whether Miller and similar precedent automatically require suppression for absence of dates | Cooper: relied on Miller to argue officers must supply a ‘‘crucial link’’ of current activity | State: Miller does not compel suppression where affidavit evidences an ongoing operation | Held: Miller remains controlling on the need for a nexus, but facts here reasonably supported a current nexus; good-faith exception resolves the case |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Miller, 75 P.3d 1108 (Colo. 2003) (probable-cause and good-faith analysis; identifies scenarios where officers cannot reasonably rely on a warrant)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (establishes the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Iiland, 254 F.3d 1264 (10th Cir. 2001) (staleness analysis: ongoing drug operations reduce significance of passage of time)
- People v. Randolph, 4 P.3d 477 (Colo. 2000) (addresses warrant particularity and circumstances where warrants are deficient)
- People v. Pacheco, 175 P.3d 91 (Colo. 2006) (standard of review for suppression hearings)