People v. Fields, 2018 CO 2

Background

Officers responded to a 911 call from a convenience-store employee who reported a suspected drug transaction involving a red truck and a female participant; dispatch located the truck parked at a nearby Carl’s Jr.
Two uniformed officers approached the parked truck without lights or blocking it and questioned the occupants; occupants gave identifying information and admitted probation/warrant status.
An officer observed the exposed handle of a handgun under the center console, ordered Reed out, had him place his hands on the vehicle, and conducted a pat-down; during the frisk the officer felt and then recovered a baggie of methamphetamine and Reed admitted he was a felon.
After learning of the firearm, the officer ordered Fields out, frisked him, recovered a pocket knife and throwing star, and Fields admitted being on probation and then that he had a handgun; the officer recovered a loaded handgun and methamphetamine from Fields.
The district court suppressed all evidence as the fruit of an unlawful investigatory stop, concluding the initial contact was a stop lacking reasonable articulable suspicion; the People appealed interlocutorily.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether initial approach to parked truck was a seizure requiring reasonable suspicion	Approach was consensual; no seizure occurred until officers directed occupants out	Initial contact was an investigatory stop from the outset lacking reasonable suspicion	The approach was a consensual encounter; seizure occurred later when officers ordered occupants out and frisked them
Whether officers had reasonable articulable suspicion at the time of the stop	By the time occupants were ordered out, officers had corroborated informant report, observed a firearm, and had admissions/warrant info giving reasonable suspicion	Any corroboration was insufficient at the initial contact; suppression required	By the time of the stop (ordering out and frisk), officers had reasonable articulable suspicion to justify a Terry stop and frisk
Whether officers acquired probable cause before searches/arrests	Admissions (Reed’s felony admission; Fields’s admission re: probation and gun) and observable facts supplied probable cause to arrest and search incident to arrest	Discovery of drugs preceded or exceeded Terry frisk, so searches were unlawful	Admissions and facts supplied probable cause before any search exceeded a frisk; searches incident to arrest were lawful
Whether inevitable-discovery or independent-source doctrines excuse any timing error	Officers would have had to investigate the firearm (check serial number) and thus inevitably would have learned the gun was stolen and occupants were felons, leading to arrest and search	Suppression should apply because evidence flowed from an unlawful stop	Even if timing were imperfect, inevitable-discovery (and independent investigation of the gun) would have led to lawful arrests and discovery of evidence

Key Cases Cited

Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (consensual encounters do not implicate Fourth Amendment seizure)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (investigatory stop standard requires reasonable articulable suspicion)
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (reasonable person standard for seizure; persons must feel free to decline requests)
United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (consensual encounters and show of authority analysis)
Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (distinguishing consensual encounters from seizures)
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (factors relevant to seizure analysis)
Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (distinguishing investigatory stops from arrests)
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (limits on searches exceeding a protective frisk)
Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 (probable cause as practical, nontechnical concept)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (probable cause as "fair probability")
Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (reasonable suspicion lower standard than probable cause)
United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (no warrant required for arrest outside home)
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (inevitable-discovery doctrine)