*1 judicial precedent know of sumed area). legislates law when it
area of Colorado, of the PEOPLE State of
Plaintiff-Appellant, III. Conclusion Benjamin PATE, Otto Defendant- Notably, Majority while the concludes that Appellee. ambiguous, is not does
the statute it provide guidance the term or define as to No. 03SA37. “originate productivity” what from land’s Supreme Colorado, Court of It does hold that must means. be En Banc. agricultural some connection between the produced product land itself and that June 2003. greenhouse building on the is land insuffi- Maj. I op. cient. what how
nection needed and close that connec- instance,
tion be. For would it be several, one,
enough or even of the contain- greenhouse
ers in contained soil
ground beneath it? it Does matter whether plants greenhouse remain there period grow there for a of time are
just briefly warehoused for sale? agricultural
I note that the definition do 39-1-102(1.1), provides section
under
“agricultural” “farming, ranching, includes husbandry,
animal and horticulture.” Under Majority’s position, production of ani- products through husbandry may
mal animal susceptible agricultural land
classification unless the animals some
way grown products fed from on that land. I statutory support
find no for that conclusion. Assembly
Until the General resolves this
confusion, my it is view that we should afford “tie”, taxpayer the benefit continue reasoning ap- follow
peals Administrator, Property and the Tax taxpayer, Welby
and rule favor of the reasons, respectfully
Gardens. For these Majority opinion.
dissent from the
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice join
MULLARKEY and Justice HOBBS
this dissent.
Deputy Attorney, Wilson, District Jeanne M. Deputy Attorney, May, Depu- District Diana ty Attorney, Springs, District Colorado Colo- rado, Attorneys Plaintiff-Appellant. Kaplan, David S. Colorado State Public *3 Defender, Martinez, A. Deputy William State Defender, Cynthia Jones, Deputy Public J. Defender, Public Springs, State Colorado Colorado, Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee. Opinion Justice BENDER delivered the Court.
I. Introduction interlocutory appeal, uphold this we facts, trial court’s historical sub- record, stantiated which its conclusions of law case this lacked cause to believe that a bur- glary progress was in and that lacked a reasonable basis believe there was a сolorable claim an emergency threatening the life or of another in Accordingly, defendant’s home. hold police’s justified by defendant’s home neither nor aid violated right constitutional to be free from unreason- able searches. we affirm suppression court’s order and remand the proceedings case with consistent opinion. this Proceedings II. Facts and Below testimony Based on the of Officers Good Zortman, testifying witnesses suppression hearings, pertinent two facts are as follows. Springs
Colorado Good Officers and Zort- responded early morning man to an call progress. about The caller reported a “lot racket” and possibly suspects. four specified The officers went to the address area. searched the After extensive through, walk the officers found no evidence burglary. about people two leave encountered passengers car. The the car directed the Smith, Attorney, apartments, group nearby Jeanne M. District to a District, Denison, address, original burglary Fourth Judicial R. Gordon call where testimony, Zortman go” shout “Let her In her Officer stated heard someone say a breaking glass. person that she did not hear Wonza first and the sound injured running inside the Conse- passenger saw two individuals report quently, her official of events fails to passenger saw four the other area while indicated that state that Wonza someone running. individuals injured inside the people the two in the speaking with After During exchange neither twenty minutes approximately after car and nor Zortman asked him who call, dispatch Officer walked the initial Good resided Upon apartments. approaching toward the permission to enter about walking apartments, he saw man to- anyone’s injuries, anyone re- extent back of the wards him from the *4 assistance, quired medical or what had who man, building. Although the whom the offi- any injuries, inju- of the whether the caused Wonza, cers identified as William had later apartment, ries had occurred or face, head and Good did blood on his Officer any activity illegal there was occur- whether injury had a serious not believe that Wonza ring apartment. required attention. Wonza or was fully cooperative and with officers. aware any understanding Despite lacking of what exchange There a brief between Officer was happened, had Officers Good and Zortman Wonza, during which time Good and Officer any left with another Wonza officer without joined Zortman them. assistance, questions and walked аpartment investigate towards with suppression hearings, At the two testi- two other officers who had arrived at the mony Good Zortman differed Officers scene. during the as to Wonza brief ex- what said hearing, change. During first arriving Officer Upon backyard at the deck of the Good on direct he asked Wonza apartment building, testified the officers noticed bro- glass. They where he had come and Wonza indicat- signs ken no window saw other ed an and said that his burglary. friend a disturbance or officers “Ben inside.” Consistent with this state- any coming was did hear noises from the ment, speaking said that after any Officer Good building nor other indica- witnesses, Wonza, including he Upon reaching with all of the apart- tion of violence. any door, however, idea what still did not about was ment the four drew going guns on: knocking their and without or otherwise enter, asking permission to mоved into the exactly [Wle sure what we had at weren’t home and defendant’s down stairwell to- witnesses, point. According living space. ward the defendant’s sure if made
weren’t even actually apartment, whether we had a defendant, Pate, Benjamin was stand- mean, burglary. we didn’t know what we ing the bottom of the stairs. He was had, everyone suspect is a until we find so injured bleeding, coopera- but calm and otherwise, all, out till we clear them pointed gun tive. Officer Good at Pate exactly figuring out then we start what’s him to show him and asked his hands and going on. any people whether were other in the apartment. complied Pate and said there cross-examination, But upon Officer Good people other were no testimony modified his and stated Won- injured za three him that “Ben inside” officers detained Pate while told Of- quick thus Officer Good became concerned ficer Good conducted search. Find- else, talking about Ben’s after with no one returned to welfare Won- Officer Good During carrying any if he hearing, za. Pate and asked him second repeated yes, stating speaking drugs weapons. that after Pate with said on, marijuana still had in his going had “no clue what so we that he ketamine and first, gather everyone possession. patted kind of Officer him down wanted then Good ketamine, asking questions.” thirty-six bags start and discovered substance, repeatedly III and less Schedule controlled had no idea what was marijuana pockets. going simply than an ounce of on and trying were to conduct Good did not investigation While in Officer make a determination. injuries, he re- ask about Pate’s whether The trial court any concluded that assistance, quired whеther he medical had exceptions upon based been the victim crime clearly failed for the absence of occurred in crime had probable cause whatsoever. apart- The officers Pate from the removed Second, the trial court ruled that there was question him him ment and took outside no evidence that the a reason- time, For first further. the officers able basis believe that there was an imme- hap- asked both Pate Wonza what diate crisis pened. They told respect well-being that re- robbery. victims assault and Both Pate quired police illegal assistance to and Wonza medical attention and intrusion. The trial court found that hospital. were taken to the opportunity officers had an Won- Upon the conclusion of officers’ testi- za, who had come from Pate’s mony during suрpression hearing, the first ment, was, about whose it who justifi- the trial court ruled that there was no inwas and the extent *5 police cation whatsoever officers’ war- injuries allegedly by Pate. suffered The offi- rantless into Pate’s residence. The questions. cers failed ask trial that court found there was no evidence The court further found that the first time knocked, police they get that did not testified, he made no mention of they response, or that needed to make a primary going apart- his in reason entry to warrantless determine Pate’s well- well-being ment to check on the of Pate. being. only The trial court found that the Except prompted counsel, by when at no police that evidence available was reli- time did Officer state Good that the officers’ able was the statement from Wonza that his primary purpose was to ascertain the well- friend was still in the The trial being Pate. of police court concluded not did the probable apart- lack cause to enter Pate’s The trial court found that the officers ment, there even reasonable and have been able to determine Pate’s suspicion activity articulable that criminal if well-being they had knocked on door his in occurred that would questioned entering first and Pate before Thus, justify their intrusion. the trial Indeed, court home. the trial court determined suppressed all evidence and statements se- the officers’ conduct— by police during illegal cured apartment guns knocking drawn and without of Pate’s residence. exceedingly dangerous first —was for the of- ficers and Pate. motion,
On its own the court held a second suppression hearing with additional testimo- The trial court further offi- found ny similarly from the two but cers’ conduct once were inside the cluded entered Pate’s primary likewise showed a lack of rights. in ment violation his constitutional well-being. concern for There was no
First, the testimony trial found that the officers officers asked Pate probable support any injured, did not have if cause he was whether needed to exigent provide him, excep- the traditional circumstances medical assistance to was, fact, crime, justify entry. tions that would a warrantless in a victim of a or wheth- pursuit during involved er he been hot assaulted commis- Instead, did not have cause to sion of a crime. Pate was treated as suspect throughout believe that a crime had occurred the entire encounter. apartment or that evidence lost if The would be court concluded that there was no evi- they did not presented take immediate action. dence that would indicate that the all provide court found that entered officers testified as- 1010 totality as would court af- circumstances the trial to Pate. sistance appeared prudent to “a and trained suppressed all order and firmed its earlier at the time decision officer” illegal during the search. evidence obtained entry was He warrantless made. conduct a 4.1 and section 16-12- Pursuant to C.A.R. Grazier, bert, 480; People v. P.3d at 992 (2002), 102(2), People filed this 6 C.R.S. (Colo.2000). 1149, 1154 P.2d sup- appeal of the trial court’s interlocutory exception to One such the Warrant
pression order. exigent applies Clause when police ac exist that necessitate immediate Exceptions Unreason- Otherwise III. Kluhsman, People tion. v. 980 P.2d Warrant- аble and Unconstitutional (Colo.1999). exigent Under circum Exigent Circumstances Searches: less exception, prosecution must stances Emergency Aid (1) presence prove ruling sup on a motion When (2) justifies circumstance in fact- engage both press, a trial court entry. Id. We held that finding inquiry into the historical specific —a qualify “exigent three circum situations application, law the case—and phenomena of would such an unautho stances” that application control involves which (1) entry: engaged rized ling legal to the facts established standard (2) suspect; pursuit” fleeing “hot there is People King, v. evidence. evidence; a risk destruction of of immediate omitted). (Colo.2001)(internal citations (3) is a colorable claim of an emer historical facts The trial court’s gency threatening the situation life or will not be are entitled deference and Id. another. by competent supported evi
overturned situation has been Rivas, record. See dence cases when offi invoked *6 (Colo.2000). 315, 320 P.3d entry cers a into a resi make warrantless for dence to secure the and search appellate The role of the See, suspects e.g., People v. victims. however, trial to determine whether the is (Colo.1986). Unruh, 370, P.2d 379 How 713 supported by legal conclusions court’s are ever, justify entry, police to a warrantless the trial evidence sufficient probable that a cause believe legal applied the correct standards. court recently burglary may in occurred controlling dispute, the no When facts Grazier, progress. at 992 P.2d 1154. may issue de novo appellate court review the Grazier, example, In upheld wе the legal undisputed the effect con because suppression burglary order in a court’s trolling a law. facts is Id. Be probable case the lacked cause because controlling we that no facts are in find a warrant under enter residence without here, dispute turn to a of the we discussion exception. exigent Id. at circumstances legal standards. case, 1156. In that a 911 received Both the United and Colora States possible burglary progress. call about bar unreasonable searches reported observing do Constitutions The men enter caller IV; window, through open U.S. amend. door and seizures. See Const. II, § 7. Const. art. have held that a let another man Colo. We caller, neigh- then the curtains. The presump close seizure is warrantless any not think that bor to the tively justified unreasonable unless one lived Id. at the men at exceptions well-established to War 1151. rant Clause of Fourth Amendment. See (Colo. Hebert, 473, People v. 46 478 P.3d police investigated When 2002). prosecution The burden is on the however, ment, any they did not observe exceptions. v. prove one of these See signs burglary progress. There Amato, 57, 60, P.2d 423 entry. They 193 Colo. 562 no did not hear forced (1977). prosecution suspicious To determine whether the or see other movement. noises burden, a man Through the window saw inside has met its courts must examine the
1011
emergency
place
posed
apparent
armed and
no
with the
but he was not
area
to be
on the
explained
The
knocked
door
searched.
Id. at 479. As
threat.
we
questioning
past,
answered. Without
and the man
“reasonable basis” allows
there or
him about whether
lived
his
to make warrantless entries
presenсe,
identify
reason for
there are
or the
facts
the conclusion that
safety
him
entered the
someone’s
seriously
officers handcuffed
life
threat-
1152,1155.
at
ened:
Id.
emergency
[T]he
exception
aid
does not
facts,
held
the trial
On such
give police officers carte
blanche make a
correctly
ruled that the
officers’ obser-
warrantless
whenever there is a the-
probable
vations did not establish
cause to
possibility
oretical
that another’s life or
prog-
believe that
there was a
safety
danger; rather,
is in
there must be
Suspicion
ress.
Id. at 1155-56.
alone does
a colorable claim that
life or
another’s
safe-
level
cause. Id.
not rise to the
at
ty
danger.
is in
1154.
to act reason-
failed
ably
applied
under the
and thus
Id. We
circumstances
the reasonable basis test in
exigent
(Colo.
exсep- People
Thompson,
not invoke the
circumstances
1282
P.2d
1989),
entry.
upheld
tion to
their unconstitutional
where we
because there was a color-
A second established
able claim
safety
that someone’s life or
emergency
the Warrant Clause is the
aid
danger.
exception.
emergency
aid
also
Thompson,
police responded
to a
requires
emergency
claim
“colorable
of an
911 domestic violence call.
P.2d
at 1284-
threatening
the life
another.”
scene,
85. When
arrived at the
Hebert,
However,
479.
unlike the
spent
several
casings
observed
bullet
exception,
the emer
driveway,
on the
porch,
blood on the front
gency
prosecution
exception requires
aid
door,
the front
and on the
side
house
prove
the existence of “an immediate crisis
door,
next tо
front
ajar
a front door
probability
[police]
and the
assistance
inches,
several
glass.
and shattered
Observ-
Amato,
helpful.”
will be
193 Colo.
signs
violence,
these
Also,
P.2d at 424.
aid doc
knocked on the door. A woman answered
require
Id.;
trine
does
cause.
covering
who had blood
her face and clothes
Kluhsman,
also
535 n.
P.2d
holding
pack
and was
an ice
to her head. Id.
contexts in
factual
which we have
*7
police’s subsequent
We concluded that
the
applied
emergency
exception
the
explain
aid
entry
residence,
without a warrant
the
the
probable
absence of
usual
cause re-
permission,
without
the woman’s
was
quirement for warrantless searches. For ex- necessary and authorized under the emer-
ample,
police respond
when
to a fire or other
gency
given
signs
excеption
sug-
aid
that
the
emergency,
easy
similar
it is
to understand
gested
in danger.
the woman’s
was
why they
required
probable
not
to have
at
Id.
1286.
Hebert,
cause. See
remained inside prove an People have failed to such glass the entrance jured, broken emergency Although and saw the officers situation. suspicious burglary been same occurred, suspicion not did rise Second, argue if the People that even Grazier, probable the level of cause. 992 P.2d in- probable cause to did not have contrary, On the the officers’ own exception, voke the testimony regarding their observations testimony proves and their encounter with entry into Pate’s residence was witness, key show not justified aid under did cause to believe a occurred, burglary reasonable basis because but did not have any illegal crisis to believe that an immediate existed believe that activity in Pate’s had occurred probability assistance The witnesses told would be usеful. At the officers testified shouting, a woman heard that, broken win breaking glass, the sound of screaming, glass, no dow there was other indication of running men from the scene. any saw or four progress two other distur injured They any They man noises. encountered who bance. did hear signs entry. not see inside, other forced possibly friend also said that his They signs did not other violence injured, and observed a broken 1152, 1155; suspicious movement. Id. that the offi- conclude window. Berow, People v. 1125-26 testimony clearly shows that the offi- cf. cers’ *8 (Colo.1984)(holding that officers have emer- apartment cers render entered reasonably burglary in that a believed gency aid. showing progress on that the based evidence defer factu- disagree. We must to the town, We apartment was out owner the locks court thus con- al forcibly door had been re facts, moved, ex- suspicious on those neither clude that based and a witness saw move apartment). totality the ment inside the ception applies. Under they appeared would have circumstances Despite the lack of observable evidence police prudent to a and trained at the officer burglary apart- had occurred at that time, agree with the trial court that ment, key police failed to police entry into Pate’s officers’ warrantless might provided witness who them with right home his constitutional to be violated enter the cause to with- free search and sei- from an unreasonable to secure the out warrant suspects. police The zure. victims
1013 any questions critical to a P.3d at 479. not ask Wonza No such reasonable basis exist- did They investigation. did not ed here. burglary ask in whether а him who lived First, no evidence of an “im occurred, if Wonza’s or Pate’s burglary had mediate crisis” Pate’s home. The burglary injuries were related to a or other responded burglary to a call about a activity, Wonza or Pate criminal whether progress at an address that was not Pate’s perpetrators burglary,
were victims or
any
address. The call
include
re
any
perpetrators
whether
other victims or
or
port
any
of violence or
other situation that
Kluhsman,
still inside.
980 P.2d at
Cf.
might
suggest an armed or dangerous
(holding
justi-
exigent
that
circumstances
535
perpetrator.
before separate duty cy from his assistance is investigation оf a anof on-the-scene stances Hebert, 46 investigate People crime. v. See necessarily require recently reported crime (Colo.2002) 473, (quoting 479 1 Ameri- P.3d given than greater latitude that officers Cnminal can Bar Association Standards for subsequent, “planned,” in-home arrest. for a 1.1-1, (2d Supp.): §§ 1-2.2 ed. 1986 Justice LaFave, Wayne Search generally 3 R. See “complex multiple tasks to and 1996) 6.1(f) (3d § 273 ed. and Seizure identifying appre- in perform addition (“On hand, for the occasion the other committing criminal hending persons serious already are out arises while arrest offenses,” including who individuals “aid prior ongoing investigating in the field harm,” danger physical “assist those are arrest, which is basis for conduct themselves,” “pro- care for cannot who a far greater should be reluctance basis”). emergency services on vide other аn having an fault the for not arrest than a “theoretical While there be more warrant.”) emergency, an have de- possibility” of quantum clearly suspicion needed as a proba- in this scribed the
The officers case claim” or a “colorable “reasonable basis” to believe that a crime or crimes ble cause entry pursuant emergency held that recently in the immedi- been committed justified exception if circum- of, inside, can be vicinity actually if not ate appeared stances as would have to a apartment; defendant’s and that the bloodied prudent and trained officer at the time of the outside, be, man whatever else he threatening emergency indicated the victim of an The officers least assault. life, cases, safety, property, or in some by bleeding spe- man to thе were directed Id., 479; Malczewski, People another. v. cific from which he had 62, (Colo.1987). 66 744 P.2d morning, following emerged, at 3:00 in witnessed citizen- commotion first-hand emergency the colorable claim of While informants, reliable for who considered threatening safety not of another need cause, a matter of purposes of conjunction arise with the commission 698, law, Polander, 702 P.3d crime, very may it well often does. (Colo.2001); Edmonds, People v. 195 Colo. situations, initially officers are often 358, 364, (1978), and found distinguish possible perpetrators unable to glass Although broken on back "window. certainly expect from victims and cannot be police understandably remained uncer- precautions for their own ed abandon occurred, it precisely tain of what had where duty provide or abandon occurred, perpetratоrs and whether other emergency altogether. assistance Nor is the remained I victims inside the exception applicability emergency de sole, would find this information amounted pendent upon for the or even probable cause to believe would find purpose rendering primary, assistance. (Colo. perpetrators, Unruh, or other victims need People v. P.2d assistance, 1986) (“Under pursued investigation emergency immediately. only per- requirement, may would find it not warrant pur- but essential private property missible for enter a warrant without investigation suing a field under these cir- there is a belief that where reasonable ensure, being premises burglarized cumstances to to the extent that have been or are case, in this to secure and to did so that violent crimes order victims.”) suspects continuing and While thе that others were narrowly cir- emergency Abandon- must be need of assistance. *12 necessary weapons justify only drugs. to conduct or eumscribed court did not find assistance, impermissibly exploited it less is no to render merely presence general also applicable to conduct a because of subjectively hope, even en- prepare, or or conducted unlawful questioning perpetrators long of a search or of crime. As the defendant. It counter the circumstances, they simply emergency exception would held that the as the warrant, appeared prudent trained at not excuse and officer their entrance without a entry, an and that all of indicate evidence and statements ac- time another, quired threatening point of evidence after that fruit of an pro- process entry, finding requested of a crime discovered of unlawful determining anticipated viding assistance or wheth- even the defendant. necessary ignored. it not be Id. er need majority I believe that the affirmance of holding un- puts police time this conducting At the entered the stairway, investigation they suspected above had an immediate locked door of position. informants com- an I information citizen of a crime untenable do not ques- jurispru- motion in the area of the believe the Fourth Amendment tion, morning, suggesting dence of either 3:00 this or the United property possible Supreme of require destruction and assault States would them Court female, kidnapping endanger attempts and had themselves abandon all personally leaving a man to assist possible ongoing encountered victims of recent or crimes, injury, head who immediate scene with a unless or until be sure reportedly acquired probable told one of them that had someone cause or the inside, danger passed. else cir- I was still hurt. Under these would therefore re- cumstances, I proceedings would find verse and remand grounds an least reasonable believe that the disputed determine whether evidence occurred; product assault of some kind had interrogation was the unlawful involved, people a number of were- most person. an unlawful search of the defendant’s for; whom were unaccounted and that at I victim, am authorized state that possibly Justice perpetra- least one other and tor, join questioning KOURLIS Justice RICE in this remained Further inside. man, dissent. apparently in- bloodied who affray, securing volved in the before assessing
scene role would
been, suggested, as Officer Good both incon- costly precious clusive and time. Peo- Cf. 1282,
ple Thompson, v. 1285-86 (Colo.1989) (reasonable suspect STEINER, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, Eric perpetrator despite was still in the house domestic abuse victim’s assertions to the trary). Similarly, suggestion at the balk MINNESOTA LIFE COM- INSURANCE emergency excep- application PANY, corporation; foreign Tim tion to knock an- Schloesser; Larry Norlin, Defen- entering, nounce themselves under before dants-Appellees. which it reason- No. 01CA1670. able ongoing to assume a crime Appeals, Colorado Court perpetrators that some of whatev- Div. A. (or recently occurring) er occurred re- mained inside. 7, 2002. Nov. met record indicates that Rehearing Jan. 2003. Denied stairs, defendant the foot of the almost May Certiorari Granted immediately upon entering, and after cursory protective conducted most
sweeps, gave incriminating response possessed
Officer Good’s whether-he