v. Gutierrez and People v. Carrillo-Toledo, 2020 CO 60

Colorado State Patrol Trooper Christian Bollen followed a Nevada-registered rental pickup on I-70 after database hits showing recent travel through Amarillo, Texas.
While following the truck, Bollen observed two lane changes; for at least one change he testified the truck’s tires were partially on the center dashed line before the driver activated the turn signal.
Trooper Bollen stopped the truck, conducted a consent pat-down of the driver, questioned the occupants, and—after observing nervousness and suspicious answers—obtained consent to search the vehicle.
A search of the truck’s tailgate uncovered three to five pounds of heroin; both occupants were charged with possession with intent to distribute.
The trial court granted the defendants’ joint motion to suppress, concluding the driver had not violated the lane-change statute because he signaled as he completed the maneuver; the People filed an interlocutory appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court.
The Colorado Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute requires signaling before initiating a lane change and that the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 42-4-903(4) requires signaling before changing lanes	People: statute requires a signal to indicate intention to change lanes and must precede the lane change	Defendants: statute only requires a signal to indicate intention; signaling as the lane change is completed satisfies the statute	Held: Signal must precede movement; signaling after tires are over the line is not compliant, so officer had reasonable suspicion to stop
Timeliness of interlocutory appeal under C.A.R. 4.1	People: appeal was filed within 14 days and, though initially filed in the wrong court, transfer statute saves the filing	Defendants: appeal was untimely because it reached the Supreme Court after 14 days	Held: Appeal timely—transfer statute treats misfiled appeal as properly filed in the correct court

Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014) (an objectively reasonable mistake of law can justify a stop)
Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (passengers are seized during a traffic stop and may challenge its legality)
People v. Greathouse, 742 P.2d 334 (Colo. 1987) (misfiled appeals may be transferred and treated as timely)
People v. Burnett, 432 P.3d 617 (Colo. 2019) (statutory signal requirement construed to require signaling before lane changes)
People v. Vaughn, 334 P.3d 226 (Colo. 2014) (officer may stop vehicle when objective reasonable suspicion of traffic offense exists)
Turbyne v. People, 151 P.3d 563 (Colo. 2007) (when facts are undisputed, legal effect is a question of law)
People v. Minjarez, 81 P.3d 348 (Colo. 2003) (appellate courts defer to trial court historical fact findings supported by the record)
People v. Morley, 4 P.3d 1078 (Colo. 2000) (suppression of evidence obtained via unconstitutional searches or seizures)