People v. George
2017 COA 75
Colo. Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant Matthew George was tried for sexual offenses involving two unrelated minor victims he met online; similar contact patterns alleged for both victims.
- Police towed George’s car after he was evicted; the towing company consented to a search of the car and then to a forensic examination of a GPS device found inside.
- Trial court suppressed evidence from the first forensic examination, ruling the towing company lacked valid consent to permit examination of the GPS device.
- Prosecutors did not take an interlocutory appeal of that suppression; instead they sought and obtained a warrant from a different magistrate (without disclosing the prior suppression) and had the GPS reexamined, producing substantially the same data.
- At a second suppression hearing the trial court found the warrant and second search were an independent source and denied suppression; George was convicted and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GPS data obtained after a warrant (but following a prior suppressed warrantless forensic exam) must be excluded because of law-of-the-case or forfeiture | The warrant cured any prior defect; it provided an independent source for the GPS data and was properly issued despite no disclosure of the earlier suppression | The initial suppression was an unchallenged trial-court ruling (law of the case); prosecution’s later warrant was a forbidden end-run and the investigator’s failure to disclose the suppression to the magistrate forfeited reliance on the warrant | Warrant evidence admissible: law of the case does not bar seeking a later warrant on an independent-source theory; suppression overturned because (1) decision to seek warrant was not prompted by the fruits of the unlawful search and (2) the warrant affidavit did not rely on evidence from the unlawful search |
| Whether the prosecutor may now defend the initial search as undertaken in good faith despite the trial court’s prior rejection of that argument | Prosecution contended the initial consent/search was reasonable and in good faith and thus the first suppression would be erroneous | George argued the good-faith argument was litigated and rejected below and is not properly before the appellate court because it raises factual findings the prosecution failed to appeal interlocutorily | Court declined to consider the good-faith defense to the first search because that factual contention had been rejected by the trial court and prosecution failed to pursue interlocutory appeal; validity of initial search not before the court |
| Whether joinder of the two victims’ cases for trial was improper | Prosecution argued the two sets of acts were sufficiently similar and admissible under common plan/scheme and CRE 404(b) so joinder was proper | George argued dissimilarities and potential prejudice (credibility issues) required severance | Joinder affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; evidence of each offense would have been admissible in separate trials to show common plan and no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Morley, 4 P.3d 1078 (Colo. 2000) (independent source doctrine and exclusionary rule background)
- People v. Schoondermark, 759 P.2d 715 (Colo. 1988) (independent source test articulated)
- Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988) (independent source balances deterrence and truth-finding; explains double-bite doctrine)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) (inevitable discovery and societal interest in admissible evidence)
- People v. Roybal, 672 P.2d 1003 (Colo. 1983) (law-of-the-case discussion where appellate ruling was necessary to prior holding)
- United States v. Hanhardt, 155 F. Supp. 2d 840 (N.D. Ill. 2001) (second-warrant after prior suppression upheld under independent source)
- State v. Krukowski, 100 P.3d 1222 (Utah 2004) (officers not required to disclose prior illegal entry to magistrate for probable cause determination)
- United States v. Whitworth, 856 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1988) (endorses disclosure as better practice though suppression not required where affidavit independent)
- United States v. Johnson, 994 F.2d 980 (2d Cir. 1993) (independent source applies where government seeks warrant once court signals suppression concerns)