246 P.3d 642
Colo.2011Background
- Wehmas was charged with DUI and hit-and-run after driving drunk, damaging a parked car, and entering his apartment without exchanging information.
- Arresting officers entered the apartment without a warrant to arrest Wehmas, after identifying him from witnesses and the property owner.
- The county court denied then later suppressed evidence, ruling DUI was grave but dissipation of BAC did not justify a warrantless entry; suppression extended to all evidence obtained from the entry.
- The district court affirmed the suppression, holding DUI is not a grave offense for exigent-entry purposes and noting BAC dissipation does not create urgency.
- The People petitioned for certiorari, arguing DUI is a grave offense and exigent circumstances justified entry, though the district court largely affirmed suppression.
- Key issue centers on whether risk of BAC dissipation constitutes exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless home entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is DUI a grave offense justifying warrantless home entry | People: DUI is a grave, jailable offense that can support warrantless entry. | Wehmas: DUI is not grave enough; entry requires a more serious crime or other exigent factors. | DUI is grave enough to be considered for exigency; however, in this case BAC dissipation did not create exigent circumstances. |
| Does dissipation of BAC constitute exigent circumstances to justify warrantless entry | People: BAC dissipation creates urgency to preserve evidence. | Wehmas: No action by suspect can hasten BAC or create immediate danger; dissipation is gradual. | Dissipation of BAC alone did not create a sufficient exigency to override the warrant requirement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984) (gravity of offense as a factor in exigent-circumstances analysis; nonserious offense weighs against warrantless entry)
- Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326 (2001) (jailable offenses influence strictness of exigent-entry analysis)
- Mendez v. People, 986 P.2d 275 (Colo. 1999) (odor of burning marijuana showed gravity but could not prove amount; informs gravity factor)
- Turner, 660 P.2d 1284 (Colo. 1983) (danger of evidence destruction requires articulable basis that evidence will be removed)
- Crawford, 891 P.2d 255 (Colo. 1995) (destruction of contraband evidence factors in exigency analysis)