2022 COA 70
Colo. Ct. App.2022Background
- On August 17, 2016, Detective Fish stopped Jason Lopez for vehicle-registration and signaling violations; a passenger (Naudia Delozier) was present.
- Officer summoned a K-9 trained to detect narcotics; the dog alerted on the vehicle’s exterior, prompting a search that uncovered multiple controlled substances, a loaded semiautomatic handgun, and tools.
- Lopez was charged, convicted by a jury of multiple drug-possession counts (and special-offender firearm enhancements), and sentenced; he appealed the denial of his suppression motion.
- Legal backdrop: Colorado’s Amendment 64 (2012) legalized limited marijuana possession; earlier Colorado cases (Esparza, Mason) treated exterior dog sniffs as non-searches, but later decisions (Zuniga, then McKnight) recognized Amendment 64 undermined that premise and held dog sniffs are searches requiring probable cause under the Colorado Constitution.
- The dog sniff in this case occurred after Amendment 64 but before the supreme court’s McKnight ruling; the trial court found only reasonable suspicion (not probable cause) and denied suppression; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding McKnight requires probable cause and the good-faith exception did not save the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a dog sniff of a vehicle exterior is a "search" under Colorado Constitution | Dog sniffs are searches only as interpreted by McKnight; People relied on then-existing law | Lopez: dog sniff is a search under state constitution (McKnight applies) | Court: McKnight controls — a dog sniff is a search requiring probable cause |
| Whether the police had probable cause to conduct the dog sniff/search | People argued facts supported at least reasonable suspicion and left open that probable cause might be satisfied | Lopez: facts did not establish probable cause to justify the search under McKnight | Held: trial court found only reasonable suspicion; People failed to show probable cause on appeal |
| Whether the exclusionary rule is barred by the good-faith reliance exception | People: officers reasonably relied on prior binding precedent (Esparza/Mason) so exclusionary rule should not apply | Lopez: Esparza/Mason were no longer binding after Amendment 64 and Zuniga; McKnight requires suppression | Held: Good-faith exception inapplicable because law was unsettled post-Amendment 64/Zuniga; Esparza/Mason could not be objectively reasonable authority |
| Whether the erroneous admission of the evidence was harmless | People did not persuasively argue harmless error | Lopez: admission prejudiced him because the illegally obtained evidence was critical | Held: Error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; convictions reversed and remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (U.S. Supreme Court held a roadside dog sniff is not a Fourth Amendment search when it only reveals contraband)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (U.S. Supreme Court explained limits of the exclusionary rule and when the good-faith exception applies to reliance on binding precedent)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (U.S. Supreme Court recognized good-faith exception to exclusionary rule for warrant reliance)
- United States v. Berrios, 990 F.3d 528 (7th Cir. 2021) (court noted good-faith exception doesn’t apply where governing law is unsettled and officers are merely "guessing at what the law might be")
- United States v. Lee, 862 F. Supp. 2d 560 (E.D. Ky. 2012) (example that officers cannot rely on mere speculation about the law to trigger good-faith protection)