People v. Hamilton, 666 P.2d 152

People v. Hamilton

666 P.2d 152

Colo.

1983

Check Treatment

*1 Court, exclusionary rule right application citi- protect fourth amendment majority opinion ig- of evidence not By admission is called for. denying zens. activity, applies it it police for the rule and through unlawful nores the reason obtained officers inappropriate law enforcement and fashion. was believed in mechanistic future violations be from would deterred Indeed, exclusionary rule of the use the fourth amendment. why good-faith case demonstrates this not exclusionary rule has I applied. rule should be exception the United States Su- interpreted by been for law a sounder basis cannot think of all preme exclusion of requiring Court than a upon to act enforcement officers Powell, v. illegally seized evidence. Stone Supreme of the United States decision 3037, 465, 96 49 L.Ed.2d 428 U.S. S.Ct. evidence based To exclude Court. been (1976). the rule not example, For because we later conclude such reliance re- good-faith act in applied when Consti- there a violation the Colorado is upon a statute or ordinance that liance punish law enforcement tution is subsequently held to be unconstitutional. nei- that warrants prescience lack 531, Peltier, 422 U.S. United States effect, censure. ther criticism nor 2313, (1975); Michigan 45 L.Ed.2d 374 S.Ct. interfering society by penalizes DeFillippo, U.S. S.Ct. a criminal trial truth-seeking function of ex- of the Application L.Ed.2d 343 trustworthy evidence. barring relevant clusionary to those rule has been restricted exclusion- application of the way In no does are objectives areas where remedial case the deterrent ary rule in this serve efficaciously United thought most served. upon which that is the foundation function Calandra, 94 S.Ct. States U.S. respectfully dissent. rests. I rule 38 L.Ed.2d 561 JUS- say I that CHIEF am authorized Here, sup- the rule has no application of dissent. joins TICE ERICKSON inor port prior decisions of this court law challenged act logic, because at a time place

enforcement official took had Court Supreme United States pen registers,

addressed the issue of attor-

evidence obtained the district belief that

ney acting in reasonable the constitutional

conduct did violate rights of defendant. Colorado, State The PEOPLE exclusionary purpose deterrent Plaintiff-Appellant, engaged rule “assumes that the willful, very negligent, at the least HAMILTON, Boyd Vestle deprived conduct which Defendant-Appellee. Peltier, right.” of some United States 2313, 2318, 95 S.Ct. U.S. 83SA120. No. po- L.Ed.2d If deterrence of unlawful 374. Colorado, Supreme Court lice is the bedrock on which conduct En Banc. is, rests, rule believe exclusionary only suppressed then 'evidence should July where a law enforcement charged knowledge, properly in an knowledge, it was obtained me It is clear to

unconstitutional manner. officers act

that where law enforcement with, upon, in reliance

conformity Supreme

decision United States *2 Brown,

Nolan Atty., By- L. Dist. John E. ron, Deputy Sr. Dist. Alan Atty., C. Shaf- ner, Deputy Atty., Golden, Dist. plain- tiff-appellant. Vela,

David F. Colorado State Public De- fender, Fitch, Ann Deputy Sue State Public Defender, Denver, defendan1>appellee. KIRSHBAUM, Justice.

The People interlocutory have filed this appeal pursuant seeking 4.1 rever- C.A.R. sal of the trial suppressing court’s order items seized to defendant’s incident arrest. The order was on the based trial court’s executing conclusion an arrest war- Department rant Golden Police officers had City no arrest defendant County agree of Denver. While we authority, that the we officers had suppression reverse under the cir- order cumstances this case.

The pertinent undisputed. facts are Dur- 19,1982, ing early evening July Gold- en Department Police officials were in- formed by a Jefferson resident that sexually the defendant had assaulted her earlier A day. for defend- ant’s arrest was on 20.1 July obtained 28, 1982, July At 9:00 a.m. on an infor- telephoned mant Golden detective reported Lamb and that defendant would visit First Interstate Bank downtown By parties agree order the record has been that the warrant was valid. supplemented by copy of the warrant. The (Del. Buzines, 3 Harr. morning. Lamb Lawson Denver sometime officer, Commonwealth, Foulke, 1842); Ky. Lt. another Golden York Blust, the bank and awaited Butolph went to 41 How.Pr. immediately (1884); a.m. defend- Copeland arrival. At 10:49 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1871); Is Lans. 84 bank, time the two at which Bat.) ant entered the lay, 19 N.C. Dev. & certain and seized officers arrested him (1881).2 13 R.I. 306 Page Staples, thereto. personal property items of incident *3 Colorado, elsewhere, authority In then contacted Lamb and Foulke peace of to effectuate arrests police officer a Denver legislation. now The General by defined to Den- subsequently transported specifically has dealt with the Assembly Concluding the Golden that City ver Jail. authority peace arrest officers in Article authority to execute officers had no 1 of Title Part C.R.S.1973. Denver, the trial arrest warrant 16-3-102, 8), (1978 Repl.Vol. C.R.S.1973 suppressed. the seized evidence ordered states as follows: any appeal, the assert that On per- may arrest a “(1) peace A officer to a acting pursuant peace Colorado officer son when: person arrest the valid arrest warrant commanding (a) He has a warrant that named therein Colorado. arrested; or such person may be advanced policy Whatever concerns (b) being has or is Any been crime peace offi- support argument by person presence; in his committed such possess authority broad cers should such or warrants, execute arrest we conclude (c) cause to believe probable He has adopted quite has Assembly the General was and has that an offense committed regard to the extra- policy different probable cause to believe that the offense authority arrest to be ar- person was committed peace officers. rested.” century of nineteenth common law three of circumstanc- defining sets recognized that the England arrests, the sec- peace es public official to execute a warrant impose territorial arrest limi- tion does judicial limited peace officers to tations on warrant, issuing and that unless warrants. section execute arrest specifically par- the warrant itself named a 8), (1978 Repl.Yol. it, public official ticular official following critical restrictions contains could not execute a warrant outside officers: the arrest geographic political entity boundaries of the peace officer is in fresh any “When See, e.g., Rex v. employing such official. offender, alleged having a any Weir, Eng.Rep. & Barn. C. having knowl- for his arrest Blake, Cromp. R. M. & Gladwell v. issued, edge that such warrant been (1834). also Eng.Rep. 1235 See warrant, or, in the absence Chitty’s Blackstone, on Commentaries committed in the when the offense was IV, n. ch. England, p. Laws Book or the officer has rea- presence officer’s recog- Early American cases also the al- grounds to believe that prohibited sonable nized that a officer was leged a criminal offender committed executing beyond the from arrest warrants offense, alleged offender crosses geographic entity political boundaries of the See, boundary marking the territorial employed. which the officer was line County. opin- Popejoy, El 2. See Re 26 Colo. 55 P. 1083 made the arrest Paso deputy Arapahoe County wherein this court held that a defend- ion assumes that voluntary ant’s submission to his consti- arrest common law sheriff right ques- tuted waiver of the Arapahoe person County to who was arrest Arapahoe County deputy tion object of an arrest warrant. who, pursuant sheriff to a valid arrest limit his authority, pressly such authorize extra-territorial execution may pursue beyond boundary him such by peace See, of arrest warrants officers. arrest, line and make the issue a sum- e.g., Official Code of Ga.Ann. 17-4-25 § complaint, mons and (Michie 1982) or issue a notice of (“an may, penalty assessment.” any county regard without to the residence officer, of the arresting any construing When two statutes re charged with a crime.”); N.H.Rev.Stat. matter, specting subject the same similar (the (1974) Ann. 594:7 § officer named in given full legislative effect must be both power an arrest warrant “has to make the provisions. Court, Buck District any arrest at time and in place; and 608 P.2d 350 This court have, powers in any county, the same has previously recognized enacting in relation to the process as an officer of section 16-3-106 the Assembly General in county.”); 29-407 Neb.Rev.Stat. tended to limit the exercise of the arrest (1979) (“The magistrate issuing delineated section 16-3-102. *4 may an make order thereon autho- People Wolf, (Colo.1981).3 P.2d rizing person, a to in named such war- combination, In these two statutes rant, same; person execute the the in effect a prohibit police officer a “having named in may such order execute such war- warrant” for person’s a arrest from cross rant anywhere ”). in the state.... See also ing the line boundary marking “the territo Clingerman, State 180 Neb. rial limit” of the authority officer’s unless N.W.2d 765 the officer “is pursuit” in fresh of the al General Assembly expressly pro- Our has leged Thus, offender. contrary to the Peo that peace executing vided officers search assertion, ple’s peace Colorado officer may throughout warrants do so the state. armed with a Colorado arrest warrant has 16-3-305(3), (1978 Repl. C.R.S.1973 greater authority no an effectuate 8).4 Yol. The absence of language pursuant peace acting thereto than a in either section 16-3-102 or section 16-3- probable on cause without such warrant. legislative 106 indicates a deliberate choice recognizes many statute thus in general authority to limit the peace offi- of particular situations citizens communi cers to effectuate extra-territorial arrests ty may best be served the requirement based Colorado arrest warrants. See that local neigh officers familiar with local Seizures, Ringle, W. Searches & Arrests accompany peace borhoods officers from 23.4(b)(1) (2d 1982). and Confessions jurisdictions other ed. seeking § to arrest a de fendant in allegedly the Communi This consistently recognized court the ty- requirement acting that officers jurisdictions Similar territorial statutory limitations must obtain on ar- resting the aid of local officers who do have author- authority peace prevail officers in jurisdictions. See, other ity juris- to make in the “foreign” Fla.Stat.Ann. arrests (West diction, 901.04 Cum.Supp.); exigencies. La.Code absent fresh In (West 1966). Lott, Crim.Proc.Ann. art. It is People v. 197 Colo. 589 P.2d 945 true jurisdictions (1979), that statutes in some ex- we court’s affirmed trial conclu- appeal present any question 16-3-305(3) 3. This pertinent part does 4. Section in states authority peace of a to make a as follows: any geographical “citizen’s arrest” area. “Any judge issuing a search warrant ... 8). Repl.Vol. See § person or search for the search of People Wolf, supra, People See also vehicle, aircraft, object motor other Bloom, (1978) 195 Colo. 577 P.2d 288 being capable which is mobile trans- (cases private addressing authority citizen’s may ported an make order Moreover, arrest). to make an the conduct of peace officer to be named in the warrant the Golden officers did not constitute fresh same, person execute the named pursuit. Arnold, See Charnes v. 198 Colo. any- such order execute the warrant 600 P.2d 64 (emphasis supplied) where in the state.” 8). 4(c)(l)(I) recognizes Ridge Department Police Vol. sion Wheat every peace 3:00 inherent approximately p.m. who at officials It does not suspect any arrest warrant. burglary would be learned that legislatively limits p.m. location at 6:00 territorial expand at a found Denver authority by upon the exercise suspect imposed arrest the in Denver officers. p.m. Recognizing particular the Wheat at 6:00 warrants that arrest pointed 4(c)(1)(H) recognizes officers had no we Ridge therefore, and, opinion that, territorially out in footnote 1 as- are not limited cause, suming probable existence of be executed might warrantless arrest been effectu- to arrest an Contrary officials. particular jurisdiction ated which here, People’s argument approval our to the is found. named ruling the trial court’s in Lott did not complements rather than contradicts 4(c)(1) presence of an arrest suggest that the war- on limitations rant in and of itself would authorize Assembly officers General by peace extra-territorial adopted. pursuit. absent fresh case, circumstances of this Schultz, that the correctly trial concluded again emphasized we P.2d their statu Golden officers exceeded presence importance defendant. tory jurisdic- to make arrests in the authorized the exclusionary the sanction of tion in the arrest occurs. We there which guarantees to effectuate designed rule is *5 actually was immaterial who held rights. against deprivation of constitutional executed an arrest warrant when authoriz- Calandra, 338, v. 414 94 United States U.S. participated ed in the arrest (1974). Violations 38 L.Ed.2d 561 S.Ct. Wolf, process. Finally, People supra, v. se statutory per of are viola provisions recognition of again emphasized our protected rights. constitutionally of tions Assembly’s prohibition General of unilateral See, Wolf, supra. United v. People by peace officers. extra-territorial arrests Walden, (4th Cir.), F.2d 372 490 States recognize These decisions offi- denied, 94 40 416 U.S. S.Ct. cert. seeking cer to effectuate an arrest v. De- 760 United States L.Ed.2d employing other than one aff’d, F.Supp. (D.Md.1976), Vaughn, 414 774 must, pursuit, such officer absent fresh ob- denied, (4th Cir.), cert. F.2d 575 ap- tain assistance from local officers with 479, 54 (1977). 954, 98 L.Ed.2d U.S. S.Ct. propriate arresting authority. Caceres, 440 U.S. See also United States argue Crim.P. 4 autho- 59 L.Ed.2d People S.Ct. Wixon, 326 rizes a U.S. possessing Bridges But see Thus, to anywhere execute the warrant L.Ed. 2103 S.Ct. within the 4(c)(1) may state. Crim.P. contains here suppressed evidence seized be the following provisions: arrest violated con if the unauthorized only restraints on unreasonable stitutional

“(1) Warrant. Amend. Const. searches and seizures. U.S. (I) By Whom. The warrant Const, II, IV; art. 7. any peace executed officer. (II) Territorial Limits. The warrant Here, itself established the warrant within executed Colo- Peo defendant’s arrest. probable cause for rado.” (Colo.1983). ple Gouker, 665 P.2d were not fresh the Golden officers A warrant is a “written order issued While Denver, they to entered of record directed judge possibility that commanding the of with the peace officer arrest the were confronted his visit might complete named or described order.” defendant any officer arrived. 16-1-104(18), (1978 Repl. bank before Denver concerning jurisdictions The record is silent for “carefully reasons telephone the failure officers to exigencies.” two defined 635 P.2d at 218. The until dissenting authorities after opinion then states: was detained. Denver authori- This ar- circumscription reasonable contacted, were ultimately ties defend- rest powers is not without constitutional jail ant taken to a Denver rather than significance the security per- of one’s Golden institution. Under these cir- son from unreasonable searches and sei- cumstances, we conclude that the conduct Const., II, zures. Colo. Art. Sec. Con- Foulke, though of Lamb and not authoriz- ceding statutory that a aby violation ed, so was not unreasonable as to violate governmental officer rise se per need not protection constitutional significance to the level of constitutional against unreasonable searches and seizures.5 purposes rule, the exclusionary our prior case unjusti- law indicates that the Accordingly, the sup- trial court’s order fied exercise extraterritorial pressing the evidence seized from defendant powers by a police implicate officer does at the time arrest is reversed. constitutional interests. Wolf, supra. 635 P.2d 218-219. The ease is remanded to the trial court showing on a record for further Based an absence proceedings. “an emergency calling extraterritorial LOHR, J., concurs. response,” an immediate absence “good faith part mistake on J., QUINN, concurs, specially and ROVI- conduct,” legality officers about the of their J., RA, joins in special concurrence. knowledge “they of the officers that were LOHR, Justice, concurring: exceeding the territorial boundaries of their arrest,” I concur in the opinion judgment making ab- but it appropriate consider sence of “effort to solicit assistance explain why I view the facts here different- officers in Adams ... or obtain ly Wolf, warrant,” than in People v. dissenting opinion P.2d 213 (1981), a joined applied totality case which I Justice of the circumstances test Quinn’s There, dissent. adopted position Denver officers the police *6 conducted an investigation of a were suspected actions “within the zone of constitu- purchaser place II, of stolen at tional merchandise his unreasonableness under Article of business in County. They up Adams set Section of the Colorado Constitution.” two transactions between an informant and P.2d 219-220. suspect the at that location. The informant contrast, the present in case warrant was wired with a radio transmitter and the and, was obtained as Justice Kirshbaum’s

police monitored the conversations between Quinn’s concur- opinion special and Justice the suspect informant and the from near- illustrate, rence so well the of van. by The investigation continued over a a warrant officer to execute outside period five hour and culminated in the sus- his jurisdiction was not free from doubt pect’s by arrest the Denver at the officers disregard today. egregious until The suspect’s place of business in Adams Coun- which so statutory clear standard tainted ty. No warrant was obtained for that ar- People the in is sim- police conduct Wolf rest. ply totality here. same of not The Quinn’s Justice the the yielded dissent noted that section circumstances test that dis- 8) Repl.Vol. People lim- in Wolf that senters’ conclusion the of police constitutionally officers to arrest the arrest was unreason- today’s Wolf, supra, by 5. Prior to decision we have had offi- violations interpret statutory occasion to their §§ 16-3-102 and 16-3- cers limitations carefully pursuant the context of an arrest made will continue to be scruti- to a valid arrest warrant. As we indicated in nized. long an ar- the extraterritorial arrest as as II, Article able under warrant, Constitution, produces pursuant here rest issued name result, as holds. that officer opposite majority designates specifically Therefore, Justice Kirshbaum’s anywhere I concur in state. to execute it opinion majority. I. Justice, QUINN, concurring: specially 4(b) provides as follows: Jef- concur in the result. The specially “(1) The arrest warrant Warrant. Judge issuing the warrant County ferson judge issued a written order did not direct it to either specifically to any peace of a court of record directed Lamb Detective officer and shall: De- Foulke the Golden Police Lieutenant if (I) defendant’s name or State the partment, anywhere for execution unknown, description name or that is Instead, merely issuing judge state. with rea- by which he can be identified “[a]ny au- directed the warrant certainty; sonable within thorized law execute warrants (II) the defendant Command that I, therefore, agree the State of Colorado.” brought without unneces- arrested and majority Golden sary before the nearest available delay extraterritorial court; judge county or district in Denver. the defendant the of- (III) Identify the nature of signifi- case I view the facts of this fense; present in Peo- cantly different from those (IV) upon it Have endorsed Wolf,

ple (Colo.1981), 635 P.2d where bailable; amount bail if the offense is officers, knowing were boundaries of exceeding territorial county (V) signed by issuing Be authority, make an extensive proceeded to judge.” investigation defendant’s activities 4(c) warrant states “[t]he County day Adams and later in the arrested “may any peace officer” and be executed without a Adams within anywhere be executed Colorado.” Here, warrant pursuit. and not fresh contrast, is to plain meaning for the The of Crim.P. 4 a warrant had been issued arrest, judge issuing until deci- an arrest today’s permit designate by sion the name and to authorize to execute requests execute an arrest warrant officer who purpose had not been defini- in the state. all, tively bring arrest- is to resolved. conduct after ing officers, totality under circum- the court so that he defendant before case, already charges stances not so filed unreason- answer criminal *7 most pro- able as violate to filed him. In against to the constitutional about be scriptions against the warrant will be issuing unreasonable seizures cases court IV; person, charges Amend. will be U.S. Const. the same court which II, filed, and whose request Const. Art. Sec. 7. the officer at more warrant is issued will know much separately I write I because believe jurisdiction than officers from some other majority’s pur- construction of “fresh posed by is danger, any, about what if unduly per- suit" statute restricts what I of mak- likely prospects and the ceive to the clear be of the loca- ing particular an arrest at a effective to issue an arrest designating warrant tion. any- named to specifically recognizes, where As the the common majority in the state. I would not construe 16-3-106, particular section a court to direct Repl.Vol. law authorized C.R.S.1973 any- 8), prohibit by to execute a warrant peace making person officer from name jurisdiction where within the of the sued to execute it anywhere within the person and the so then named state of Colorado.2 Were the intent of the coextensive with that of the court with otherwise, rule it would have so stated.3 respect to the execution the warrant. 4, No such limitation is found in Crim.P. See, Weir, Rex 288, 107 1 Barn C.& I and would not read one into it. Chandler, Rex v. (1823); Eng.Rep. Ld.Raym. Eng.Rep. II. Case, Chorley’s 1 Salk. 91 Eng.Rep. 161 origin Section 16-3-106 (Second) Cf. Restatement of Torts law 1868. Colo.Terr.Laws R.S. (1965) (peace privileged officer not § XXII, ch. 236 at original 251. In its another under warrant unless the form the provided statute first that when is made territory within the within issued, an arrest warrant “it be the shall which the court issuing warrant has sheriff, duty any coroner or constable in arrest). order the come, whose hands any such warrant shall explicit makes long-recognized principle respective to execute same within their that courts retain the power to issue war counties,” proceeded and then to address rants and other writs in connection with the fresh issue pursuit as follows: matters they jurisdiction.1 over which have sheriff, any “When or therefore would hold that coroner con- per judge mits a stable ... be peace any nominate shall request whose the arrest is- offender, warrant having appre- warrant for the 13-1-115, C.R.S.1973, sheriff, coroner, ‘any 1. Section states that This would include con- power courts shall have “to all issue writs stable or the state Colora- necessary proper complete do, and to the county’ exercise or officer of or power by of the conferred on them the person consti- who is named in the and courts, tution and laws of this state.” District issuing justice authorized by constitution, general jurisdic- are courts of peace.” Symposium on the Colorado Rules VI, tion. Colo. Const. Art. Sec. Procedure, of Criminal Colo.L.Rev. courts, which constitution are courts of lim- jurisdiction, VI, ited Colo. Const. Art. Sec. powers are nonetheless vested with such “as 41(d)(5)®, example, expressly 3.Crim.P. re- constitutionally are inherent that, circumstances, created courts.” quires except special legislature C.R.S.1973. The search warrants must directed to granted county original courts concurrent by law to execute the “in authorized respect with district courts with county property wherein the is located.” the issuance of warrants. Section 13-6- special circumstances referred to in sub- 106(l)(b). statutory This constitutional and (d)(5)® section are set out in subsection scheme reinforces what I believe is the inherent (d)(5)(H): power of courts issue and warrants other “(II) Any judge issuing a search writs in connection with matters over which person the search of a for the search of jurisdiction. vehicle, aircraft, object motor or other capable being which is mobile trans- 4(b) (c), form, 2. Crim.P. their and ported may make an order April 1, became effective 1974. Crim.P. officer to be named such warrant to (Vol. 7B). C.R.S.1973 when the same, person execute the named in present version of section was enact- 16-3-106 any- such order execute such warrant ed, existing procedure the then rule of criminal coroners, sheriffs, where in the state. All stated that an arrest warrant “be executed police officers, and officers of the Colorado by any “may authorized law” Patrol, required, respec- State ... executed within Colorado.” counties, tive aid assist in the exe- 4(c)(1) (Vol. 1). cution of such warrant. The order authoriz- 4, however, Even under the former Crim.P. (5) may ed also authorize subsection intent was to authorize a officer named *8 by any execution the warrant officer au- anywhere in the warrant it to execute in the county original thorized law to it in the state. The comment to the rules procedure promulgated property wherein the criminal located.” in 1961 states respect (d)(5)(f) (d)(5)(H) as follows with the Both subsection and former version 4(c): statutory language track Crim.P. 41 the sec- 16-3-305(1) 4(c)(1) provides tion and “Rule for the execution Repl.Vol. 8). ‘by any person a warrant authorized law.’ 4 not offender, and the offend- the Colorado Constitution. of such hension adjoining only line into the with the constitutional er cross the is consistent sheriff, or constable comports coroner county, authority of this but also into the such offender may pursue ... of district and statutory authority with the arrest, the and make adjoining county writs and warrants courts to issue county the if had been found in such offender complete exer- proper and the “necessary pursuit.” the officer county them power conferred cise of the laws this state.” statute, and which has un- the constitution pursuit” This “fresh origi- amendments since C.R.S.1973.4 dergone several Section enactment, present in its nal was enacted however, that majority, I with the agree ch. form in 1972. Colo.Sess.Laws did not au- question the arrest warrant at The version of 39-3-106 the officers to effectuate thorize the Golden drops provision respect the the statute Denver; although defendant’s arrest to execute an duty of a the authority the was beyond the arrest author- warrant within territorial that the evidence agree I also ity, provision but retains suppressed have under should not been an in fresh pursue offender case. peculiar facts of this line of his boundary beyond ROVIRA, J., say I that am authorized arrest. in order to make an concurring opinion. joins in this specially me express 16-3-106 as an view section to a officer to statutory authorization fresh pur- arrest in

make an extraterritorial (1)

suit in two situations: the offender cause to believe probable

committed was com- a crime or crime (2) presence; and in the officer’s

mitted for the when the officer has warrant OF CITY AND COUNTY DENVER, Petitioner, or knows that offender’s arrest issued, has been but specifically designate itself does OF the INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION particular beyond officer to execute COLORADO, and Patricia STATE OF In con- authority. limits of his Wood, Respondents. I do majority, trast to the not believe legislature section 16-3-106 as a intended 82CA1007. No. of a court to limitation on the of Appeals, Court officer, particular designated by authorize III. Div. it any- to execute name in Reading such limita- where state. 19, 1983. May view, statute, my tion undercuts into 4, which was meaning of Crim.P. plain court’s rule- promulgated pursuant to this VI,

making power under Article Lott, suppression ing of the evidence 197 Colo. the trial court’s 4. This court arrest, (1979), strongly implied court stated: incident to the this seized P.2d 945 ruled, agree, pursuant we “The district court who obtains an arrest warrant have an arrest war to make an ex- was time to obtained does have there Den arrest warrant so rant or to have enlisted assistance traterritorial arrest when the Ridge police provides. at Lott Wheat ver before [defendants] and, Ridge p.m.” burglary 589 P.2d at 945. with- 197 Colo. Wheat 6:00 learned recognizes implicitly having that courts do Lott hav- thus an arrest warrant or out obtained particular police, ing to authorize of the Denver enlisted assistance officer to execute warrant over hours after crossed into several burglary state of Colorado arrested the defendants at abrogated 16-3-106. halfway uphold- section has not been house where resided.