Section 7 SECURITY OF PERSON AND PROPERTY - SEARCHES - SEIZURES - WARRANTS.

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

Section 7. Security of person and property - searches - seizures - warrants.

The people shall be secure in their persons, papers, homes and effects, from unreasonable searches and seizures; and no warrant to search any place or seize any person or things shall issue without describing the place to be searched, or the person or thing to be seized, as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation reduced to writing.

Source: Entire article added, effective August 1, 1876, see L. 1877, p. 29.

Cross references: For a warrant or summons upon a felony complaint, see Crim. P. 4; for a warrant or summons upon a misdemeanor or petty offense complaint, see Crim. P. 4.1; for issuance of arrest warrant without information or complaint, see § 16-3-108; for search war- rants and seizures, see part 3 of article 3 of title 16; for arrest warrant issued upon an indictment, information, or complaint, see § 16-5-205 (2) and (3); for suppression of evidence unlawfully seized, see Crim. P. 41(e).

ANNOTATION

I. General Consideration.

II. Probable Cause.

A. In General.

B. Judicial Review.

C. Written Oath or Affirmation.

III. Searches and Seizures.

A. In General.

B. With Warrant.

C. Legal Search Without Warrant.

D. Unreasonable Search and Seizure.

I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION.

Law reviews. For article, "By Leave of Court First Had", see 8 Dicta 10 (May 1931). For article, "By Leave of Court First Had", see 8 Dicta 14 (June 1931). For article, "One Year Review of Civil Procedure and Appeals", see 37 Dicta 21 (1960). For article, "Local Responsibility for Improvement of Search and Seizure Practices", see 34 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 150 (1962). For note, "One Year Review of Constitutional Law", see 41 Den. L. Ctr. J. 77 (1964). For note, "Search and Seizure Since Mapp", see 36 U. Colo. L. Rev. 391 (1964). For comment, "Reporter's Privilege: Pankratz v. District Court", see 58 Den. L.J. 681 (1981). For article, "Good-Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule: The Fourth Amendment is Not a Technicality", see 11 Colo. Law. 704 (1982). For article, "Incriminating Evidence: What to do With a Hot Potato", see 11 Colo. Law. 880 (1982). For article, "Attacking the Seizure — Over-coming Good Faith", see 11 Colo. Law. 2395 (1982). For comment, "Privacy Rights v. Law Enforcement Difficulties: The Clash of Competing Interests in New York v. Belton", see 59 Den. L.J. 793 (1982). For article, "Warrant Requirement — The Burger Court Approach", see 53 U. Colo. L. Rev. 691 (1982). For note, "The Colorado Statutory Good- Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule: A Step Too Far", see 53 U. Colo. L. Rev. 809 (1982). For comment, "Colorado's Approach to Searches and Seizures in Law Offices", see 54 U. Colo. L. Rev. 571 (1983). For article, "Search Warrants, Hearsay and Probable Cause — The Supreme Court Rewrites the Rules", see 12 Colo. Law 1250 (1983). For casenote, "People v. Sporleder: Privacy Expectations Under the Colorado Constitution", see 55 U. Colo. L. Rev. 593 (1984). For article, "Criminal Procedure", which discusses a Tenth Circuit decision dealing with searches, see 61 Den. L.J. 281 (1984). For article, "The Demise of the Aguilar-Spinelli Rule: A Case of Faulty Reception", see 61 Den. L. J. 431 (1984). For comment, "The Good Faith Exception: The Seventh Circuit Limits the Exclusionary Rule in the Administrative Contest", see 61 Den. L.J. 597 (1984). For article, "Veracity Challenges in Colorado: A Primer", see 14 Colo. Law. 227 (1985). For article, "Consent Searches: A Brief Review", see 14 Colo. Law. 795 (1985). For article, "United States v. Leon and Its Ramifications", see 56 U. Colo. L. Rev. 247 (1985). For article, "Criminal Procedure", which discusses Tenth Circuit decisions dealing with searches, see 62 Den. U. L. Rev. 159 (1985). For article, "People v. Mitchell: The Good Faith Exception in Colorado", see 62 Den. U. L. Rev. 841 (1985). For article, "Balancing Investigative Powers and Privacy Rights", see 14 Colo. Law. 947 (1985). For article, "Miranda Rights in a Terry Stop: The Implications of People v. Johnson", see 63 Den. U. L. Rev. 109 (1986). For article, "Criminal Procedure", which discusses Tenth Circuit decisions dealing with searches and seizures, see 63 Den. U. L. Rev. 343 (1986). For article, "Pronouncements of the U. S. Supreme Court Relating to the Criminal Law Field: 1985-1986", which discusses cases relating to warrant requirements and protection from searches, see 15 Colo. Law. 1564 and 1566 (1986). For comment, "The Constitutionality of Drunk Driving Roadblocks", see 58 U. Colo. L. Rev. 109 (1986-87). For comment, "The New Federalism Gone Awry: A Comment on People v. Oates", see 58 U. Colo. L. Rev. 125 (1986-87). For article, "Administrative Law", which discusses Tenth Circuit decisions dealing with administrative searches and seizures, see 64 Den. U. L. Rev. 105 (1987). For article, "Constitutional Law", which discusses a Tenth Circuit decision dealing with rights to privacy regarding credit reporting, see 64 Den. U. L. Rev. 216 (1987). For article, "Criminal Procedure", which discusses Tenth Circuit decisions dealing with searches, see 64 Den. U. L. Rev. 261 (1987). For article, "Logical Fallacies and the Supreme Court", see 59 U. Colo. L. Rev. 741 (1988). For article, "Criminal Procedure", which discusses Tenth Circuit decisions dealing with unreasonable searches and seizures, see 65 Den. U. L. Rev. 535 (1988). For article, "Urine Trouble: Unregulated Drug-Use Testing and the Right to Privacy", see 17 Colo. Law. 1309 (1988). For a discussion of Tenth Circuit decisions dealing with criminal procedure and search and seizure, see 66 Den. U. L. Rev. 739 and 813 (1989). For note, "Testing Government Employees for Drug Use: The United States Supreme Court Approves", see 67 Den. U.L. Rev. 91 (1990). For comment, "Fourth Amendment Protection in the School Environment: The Colorado Supreme Court's Application of the Reasonable Suspicion Standard in State v. P.E.A.", 61 U. Colo. L. Rev. 153 (1990). For articles, "Civil Rights", "Constitutional Law", "Criminal Procedure", and "Search and Seizure", which discuss Tenth Circuit decisions dealing with searches and seizures, see 67 Den. U. L. Rev. 639, 653, 701, and 765 (1990). For article, "The Use of Drug-Sniffing Dogs in Criminal Prosecutions", see 19 Colo. Law. 2429 (1990). For article, "Roadside Sobriety Checkpoints in Colorado", see 20 Colo. Law. 897 (1991). For article, "The Exigent Circumstances Exception to the Warrant Requirement", see 20 Colo. Law. 1167 (1991). For article, "The Police Have Become Our Nosy Neighbors: Florida v. Riley and Other Supreme Court Deviations From Katz", see 62 U. Colo. L. Rev. 407 (1991). For article, "The Consent Exception to the Warrant Requirement", see 23 Colo. Law. 2105 (1994). For article, "The Execution of Search Warrants", see 27 Colo. Law. 33 (April 1998). For article, "The Inevitable Discovery Exception to the Exclusionary Rule", see 28 Colo. Law. 61 (June 1999). For article, "House Bill 1114: Eliminating Biased Policing", see 31 Colo. Law. 127 (July 2002). For comment, "Begging to Defer: Lessons in Judicial Federalism from Colorado Search-and-Seizure Jurisprudence", see 76 U. Colo. L. Rev. 865 (2005). For article "The Warrantless Search of Cell Phones", see 42 Colo. Law. 69 (Aug. 2013). For article "Electronic Search Warrants in Colorado", see 44 Colo. Law. 45 (June 2015). For article, "Cell Phones, Passwords, and Search Warrants,", see 44 Colo. Law. 47 (Aug. 2015).

Annotator's note. For further annotations concerning warrantless arrests, see § 16-3-102. For further annotations concerning search and seizure, see part 3 of article 3 of title 16 and Crim. P. 41.

This section is even more restrictive than fourth amendment to the United States Constitution as it provides that probable cause must be supported by oath or affirmation reduced to writing. Hernandez v. People, 153 Colo. 316, 385 P.2d 996 (1963); People v. Baird, 172 Colo. 112, 470 P.2d 20 (1970); People v. Brethauer, 174 Colo. 29, 482 P.2d 369 (1971); People ex rel. Orcutt v. Instant-whip Denver, Inc., 176 Colo. 396, 490 P.2d 940 (1971).

The Colorado proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures protects a greater range of privacy interests than does its federal counterpart. People v. Oates, 698 P.2d 811 (Colo. 1985).

In some instances this section may protect against invasions that the federal constitution would not protect. Derdeyn v. Univ. of Colo., 832 P.2d 1031 (Colo. App. 1991).

With respect to fourth amendment issues, the Colorado and United States Constitutions are co-extensive and Colorado courts will follow federal precedent as well as Colorado precedent. People v. Rodriguez, 945 P.2d 1351 (Colo. 1997); Eddie's Leaf Spring v. PUC, 218 P.3d 326 (Colo. 2009).

Issue may not be raised for first time on appeal. A contention that this section affords broader protection than does its federal counterpart will not be addressed for the first time on appeal. People v. Oynes, 920 P.2d 880 (Colo. App. 1996).

In the absence of a clear statement by the trial court that a suppression ruling is grounded on the Colorado Constitution, as opposed to the United States Constitution, the presumption is that a trial court relied on federal constitutional law in reaching its decision. Where trial court did not so specify, sole issue on appeal was whether the fourth amendment required suppression of evidence. People v. Olivas, 859 P.2d 211 (Colo. 1993).

Two-step inquiry required when an individual challenges as a search a governmental investigative activity that involves an intrusion into that person's privacy: (1) Was the intrusion a search and (2) if so, was it a reasonable search? People v. Santistevan, 715 P.2d 792 (Colo. 1986); People v. Wieser, 796 P.2d 982 (Colo. 1990).

This section protects individuals in the security of their homes. People v. Henry, 173 Colo. 523, 482 P.2d 357 (1971).

The fourth amendment protects individuals from unreasonable governmental...