Summaries of Published Opinions, 0418 COBJ, Vol. 47, No. 4 Pg. 82
| Position | Vol. 47, 4 [Page 82] |
COLORADO SUPREME COURT
January 8, 2018
2018 CO 1. No. 16SC303. Department of Revenue, Division of Motor Vehicles v. Rowland.
Evidence—Revocation of License—Evidence of Sobriety Tests.
In this case, the Supreme Court considered whether CRS § 42-2-126(8)(c) requires all written statements from non-law enforcement sources to be presented in affidavit form and sworn to under penalty of perjury before they can be considered as evidence in driver’s license revocation hearings. CRS § 42-2-126(8)(c) provides that, in driver’s license revocation proceedings, a hearing officer “may consider evidence contained in affidavits from persons other than the respondent,” so long as those affidavits meet certain requirements, including the requirement that the affidavits be sworn to under penalty of perjury. The Supreme Court held that CRS § 42-2-126(8)(c) does not require all written statements from non-law enforcement sources to be presented in affidavit form and sworn to under penalty of perjury before they can be considered as evidence in driver’s license revocation hearings.
Specifically, the Court held that the blood alcohol content test report in this case did not have to meet the affidavit requirements of CRS § 42-2-126(8)(c) for the hearing officer to consider its contents. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
January 16, 2018
2018 CO 2. No. 17SA159. People v. Fields; No. 17SA176. People v. Reed. Contact-Short-of-a-Stop—Reasonable Articulable Suspicion—Probable Cause—Inevitable Discovery.
The People brought interlocutory appeals, as authorized by CRS § 16-12-102(2) and C.A.R. 4.1, from the district court’s orders suppressing contraband and statements in the related prosecutions of defendants Fields and Reed. The district court found that the initial contact with both defendants in a parked car constituted an investigatory stop for which the police lacked reasonable articulable suspicion, and it suppressed all evidence acquired after the point of initial contact as the fruit of an unlawful stop.
The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s suppression orders and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court held that the district court failed to appreciate that the officers’ initial contact with defendants fell short of a stop. By...
To continue reading
Request your trial