People v. Crum
312 P.3d 186
Colo.2013Background
- Officers in Grand Junction observed Shaun Crum standing by an open rear driver-side door of a white SUV parked late at night in a commercial area known for high drug activity; they saw him reach into the vehicle.
- Crum was holding a fast-food hamburger wrapper; when officers approached he began to walk away, was stopped, and a wants-and-warrants check revealed an outstanding warrant.
- As officers placed Crum under arrest he dropped the wrapper and stepped on it; officers recovered a baggie inside the wrapper containing two Oxycodone pills packaged in a manner suggestive of distribution.
- Officers then searched the SUV passenger compartment and found methamphetamine, individually packaged marijuana/hash baggies, empty baggies, and a digital scale.
- Crum moved to suppress the vehicle evidence; the trial court suppressed, finding that although there was probable cause to arrest for possession, the officers lacked sufficient reason to believe the vehicle contained additional evidence. The People appealed interlocutorily.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the search of the passenger compartment was justified under Gant's evidence-gathering rationale | The officers had reasonable articulable suspicion that the vehicle might contain evidence of possession because Crum reached into the vehicle, retrieved pills packaged for possible distribution, and attempted to conceal them | Trial court: facts did not establish reasonable belief vehicle contained more contraband; possession of two pills could be personal use and not justify vehicle search | Reversed suppression: facts (reaching into vehicle, recovery of baggie, concealment, location/time, packaging) supplied reasonable articulable suspicion to search passenger compartment under Gant |
| Proper standard to justify passenger-compartment search incident to arrest | Gant permits a search when officers have a reasonable basis to believe evidence related to the arresting crime might be in the vehicle (reasonable articulable suspicion) | Trial court applied a higher standard (effectively requiring probable cause or certainty that more contraband existed) | Court: Gant requires a lesser, reasonable articulable suspicion standard for passenger compartment searches; probable cause not required |
| Whether Coates controls (requiring probable cause) | People: Gant/precedent allow reasonable suspicion for passenger compartment; Coates is distinguishable | Crum relied on Coates to argue higher standard / lack of connection between single pill and vehicle | Court: Coates is inapposite—Coates concerned trunk searches (probable cause) and different facts; here passenger compartment + stronger nexus justified reasonable suspicion |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2009) (limits vehicle searches incident to arrest; permits passenger-compartment searches when evidence related to the offense of arrest may be found in the vehicle)
- Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615 (U.S. 2004) (discusses vehicle-related exceptions and evidence-gathering rationale)
- People v. McCarty, 229 P.3d 1041 (Colo. 2010) (interprets Gant to allow searches when officers have reasonable basis to believe evidence might be in the vehicle)
- People v. Chamberlain, 229 P.3d 1054 (Colo. 2010) (distinguishes reasonable articulable suspicion from probable cause for limited intrusions)
- People v. Coates, 266 P.3d 397 (Colo. 2011) (refused vehicle search of trunk where only a single pill in pocket existed; clarifies contexts requiring probable cause)