2020 COA 40
Colo. Ct. App.2020Background:
- Cattaneo was detained by Walmart loss prevention for suspected shoplifting; officers found his car keys and $2,000 in cash but no ID; he said his ID was inside his parked Lincoln.
- Agents unlocked the car at Cattaneo’s permission, retrieved the ID from the center console, then re-locked it; the car had no front plate and a dealer temporary tag linked to no specific vehicle.
- Officers suspected the car was stolen and, while Cattaneo returned to the vehicle, observed a dashboard VIN obscured by paper; they asked Cattaneo to unlock the car so an agent could inspect the VIN on the doorjamb.
- The agent opened the door, viewed the VIN on the doorjamb (without entering the passenger compartment), dispatch confirmed the car was reported stolen, officers arrested Cattaneo, and a subsequent search of his backpack uncovered oxycodone pills.
- At suppression the trial court denied relief; Cattaneo was convicted of drug offenses (motor vehicle theft later dismissed). The mittimus later included a drug offender surcharge that was not announced at sentencing.
- On appeal the court addressed (1) whether the VIN inspection and brief seizure violated the Fourth Amendment, and (2) whether belated imposition of the drug surcharge violated double jeopardy.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether police needed probable cause or valid consent to obtain the VIN (by asking Cattaneo to unlock the car and opening the door to view the doorjamb VIN) | People: agents had reasonable suspicion the vehicle was stolen; the VIN inspection was a limited intrusion within an investigatory stop and thus reasonable | Cattaneo: agents needed probable cause or voluntary consent; absent that the VIN inspection and ensuing arrest/search were unlawful | Court: reasonable suspicion justified a brief investigatory stop and limited inspection of the doorjamb VIN; no Fourth Amendment violation (suppression denied) |
| Whether imposition of a drug offender surcharge on the mittimus after sentencing violated double jeopardy | People: surcharge is required by statute unless court finds inability to pay; omission rendered the sentence illegal and can be corrected | Cattaneo: because surcharge is not mandatory in all cases, failing to announce it at sentencing made the sentence final and its later imposition violates double jeopardy | Court: initial omission was illegal under § 18-19-103 because no inability-to-pay finding was made; belated correction did not violate double jeopardy; remand for an ability-to-pay hearing (one judge dissented on this issue) |
Key Cases Cited
- New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106 (no reasonable expectation of privacy in VIN located on doorjamb or dashboard; limited viewing of VIN is not a Fourth Amendment search)
- United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (temporary seizure for investigative purposes must be reasonable; distinguishes when probable cause is required)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (investigatory stops based on reasonable suspicion are permissible and are distinct from arrests)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (Fourth Amendment reasonableness is the ultimate touchstone; exceptions to warrant requirement exist for limited intrusions)
- Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (lesser intrusions can be justified by interests short of probable cause)
- People v. Rodriguez, 945 P.2d 1351 (Colo. 1997) (framework for vehicle investigatory stops: reasonable suspicion, objective for stop, scope reasonably related to objective)