292 P.3d 959
Colo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant Omar King was convicted by jury of possession of a schedule II controlled substance with intent to distribute following police encounter at a motel.
- SWAT officers executed a search warrant at the motel room without knocking or announcing, forcing entry.
- During the initial room search, officers found drug-related items but no drugs on defendant at that time.
- Defendant was brought outside for a more thorough search of his person, during which a baggie containing cocaine was allegedly retrieved from his body.
- Discrepancies existed among officer and defendant testimony about how the baggie was retrieved and whether a strip search occurred.
- Trial court found the search of defendant’s person within the warrant’s scope and that no-knock entry was proper due to exigent circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the strip search was within the warrant scope | King argues strip search exceeds the warrant’s scope and requires separate justification. | King contends a strip search is outside the scope of a search 'upon person' warrant without specific suspicion. | Strip searches outside warrant scope; require specific suspicion. |
| Whether there was sufficient reasonable suspicion for the strip search | King contends there was no individualized suspicion that he concealed contraband. | King argues the search was justified by general probable cause or presence of contraband without specific suspicion. | Remand for factual development on reasonable suspicion. |
| Whether the no-knock entry complied with knock-and-announce rules | King challenges the no-knock entry as an unconstitutional violation of the Fourth Amendment. | King asserts the no-knock entry was improper absent exigent circumstances. | No-knock entry proper due to exigent circumstances and reasonable suspicion. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bradshaw, 156 P.3d 452 (Colo. 2007) (mixed question suppression review; defer factual, de novo legal)
- People v. Arroya, 988 P.2d 1124 (Colo. 1999) (mixed question suppression review; defer factual, de novo legal)
- Safford Unified School Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2009) (strip searches require distinct justification; highly intrusive)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2009) (scope of vehicle searches; warrants must not exceed authority)
- Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1997) (no-knock exceptions require objectively reasonable suspicion)
- Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2006) (suppression not available for knock-and-announce violation)
- Cruse, 58 P.3d 1114 (Colo. App. 2002) (remand when mixed questions of law and fact require findings)
- Kidd v. Commonwealth, 565 S.E.2d 337 (Va. App. 2002) (strip search standards; individualized suspicion)
- Hughes v. Commonwealth, 524 S.E.2d 161 (Va. App. 2000) (strip search intrusion and justification)