2013 CO 28
Colo.2013Background
- Police responded to alleged protection order violation at Fuerst residence on Sept. 10, 2011.
- Fuerst was inside the home with a locked bedroom door; his wife answered the door and consented to entry.
- Officers unlocked the bedroom door and entered, finding Fuerst with firearms.
- Fuerst, a convicted felon, was detained; charges included possession of a weapon by a previous offender and protection order violations.
- Fuerst moved to suppress all evidence obtained from the warrantless entry, arguing Fourth Amendment violations.
- The trial court suppressed the evidence, concluding Fuerst, as a co-occupant, expressly refused entry by remaining behind a locked door.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fuerst’s silence constitutes express refusal to consent | Fuerst’s silence resembled an express refusal under Randolph | Silence behind a locked door does not equal express refusal | No express refusal; wife’s consent valid as to Fuerst |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (common authority over premises permits search with consent)
- Randolph v. Georgia, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) (physically present occupant's refusal prevails; co-tenant consent may be invalid)
- United States v. Strimple, 2012 CO 1 (2012) (Colo. recognizes common authority as to co-occupants when consent given by one)
- People v. Winpigler, 8 P.3d 439 (Colo. 1999) (warrantless search justified by consent from person with common authority)
- Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) (analysis of co-occupant consent vs. express refusals)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (reasonableness standard in police encounters)