People v. Strimple
2012 CO 1
Colo.2012Background
- Westminster police responded to a nighttime domestic incident; Thompson granted entry authority and consent to search the shared home, noting a handgun.
- Strimple threatened officers, refused entry, and remained inside with four children present while negotiations continued.
- Police conducted an initial protective sweep and located a handgun under a sofa after Strimple disclosed its location.
- Thompson, having common authority, consented to a renewed search for weapons; knives and a pipe bomb were found along with drug paraphernalia.
- The pipe bomb was deactivated by bomb squad; Thompson and the children were safeguarded, and Strimple was taken into custody.
- The trial court suppressed the later-discovered weapons as to Thompson’s consent due to Strimple’s prior refusal; the appellate court reversed, holding the second search reasonable under consent and exigent-circumstance principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second warrantless search was reasonable under the consent exception. | Thompson had common authority; consent valid. | Randolph prevents use of co-tenant consent when objector is removed. | Yes; second search reasonable under consent (and not vitiated by Strimple’s absence). |
| Whether Randolph controls over a later consent after removal of an objecting co-tenant. | Randolph clarifies co-tenant consent can prevail post-removal. | Randolph bars search when an objecting co-tenant is present or removed to evade objection. | Randolph applies to these facts; majority and dissent discuss different readings; court adopts consent-based approach. |
| Whether exigent circumstances justified the second search despite no ongoing emergency. | Exigent circumstances and safety of victims justify search. | Without ongoing emergency, no exigent basis for second search. | Exigency supported by totality of circumstances; safety of Thompson and children considered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (U.S. 1974) (co-occupant with common authority can consent to search)
- Sanders, 904 P.2d 1311 (Colo. 1995) (co-occupant consent valid in shared premises)
- Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (U.S. 2006) (physically present co-tenant's explicit refusal governs against another's consent)
- Henderson, 536 F.3d 776 (7th Cir. 2008) (persuasive on co-tenant consent vs. objection post-arrest)
- Murphy, 516 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2008) (contra Randolph in some co-tenant consent cases)
- Winpigler, 8 P.3d 439 (Colo. 2000) (exigency and totality-of-circumstances approach in Colorado)