2017 CO 65
Colo.2017Background
- Around 1:00 a.m., two Montrose police officers investigating open storage units approached Bernard Shoen, who was in an unlocked storage unit with his pickup truck nearby.
- Officers identified themselves, said Shoen was not in trouble, asked to speak, and Shoen agreed; their tone was conversational and they parked a few units away without using lights or siren.
- Officers told Shoen his truck plates were expired, his license revoked, and advised he should not drive and should call someone to pick him up; they warned they would impound the truck if he drove.
- Sergeant Witte asked permission to pull back a tarp on the truck bed; Shoen consented and removed the tarp.
- After limited questioning, Shoen volunteered that he had found a “rig” and then admitted there was “a little bit” of methamphetamine in the truck; officers then searched and found methamphetamine.
- At trial Shoen moved to suppress his statements and the seized evidence as fruits of an unlawful seizure; the trial court granted suppression, concluding the encounter became coercive after officers advised him not to drive. The People appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the encounter was consensual or transformed into a Fourth Amendment seizure | The People: encounter remained consensual; no show of force, Shoen was free to leave; admission was voluntary | Shoen: officers’ admonition not to drive and other circumstances were coercive, making a reasonable person feel not free to leave, so subsequent statements and search were unlawfully obtained | Court held the encounter was consensual under the totality of circumstances; reversed suppression and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- I.N.S. v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (1974) (defining when police-citizen contact constitutes a seizure)
- United States v. Martinez–Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976) (permitted brief stops in certain contexts)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (seizure requires physical force or show of authority)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (factors indicating a seizure vs. consensual encounter)
- People v. Paynter, 955 P.2d 68 (Colo. 1998) (totality-of-circumstances test for consensual encounters)
- People v. Marujo, 192 P.3d 1003 (Colo. 2008) (requests for consent do not automatically create a seizure)
- People v. Thomas, 839 P.2d 1174 (Colo. 1992) (encounter is consensual where defendant appears comfortable and voluntarily cooperates)
- People v. Gothard, 185 P.3d 180 (Colo. 2008) (standard of review for suppression rulings)