Summary
The Colorado Supreme Court considered an interlocutory appeal from an order suppressing evidence following an unlawful warrantless entry into the defendant’s home. The court held that the district court had not adequately determined whether field sobriety test results, blood test results, statements, and the arrest occurring after the entry were derivative of the unlawful search or obtained from genuinely independent sources. The court vacated the suppression order in part and remanded for additional findings, placing the burden on the People to establish genuine independence by a preponderance of the evidence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court adequately supported its suppression of field-sobriety-test results, the blood-test result, and statements obtained after the unlawful entry.
- Whether evidence obtained after the defendant left the residence could be admissible under the independent-source doctrine.
- Whether a subsequent search or seizure is genuinely independent when both its probable cause and the decision to pursue it are independent of the earlier unlawful search.
Holdings
- The portion of the district court's order suppressing evidence obtained after Haack and the officers left the residence was inadequately supported because the court did not determine whether that evidence was derivative of the unlawful entry or whether later searches and the arrest were genuinely independent.
- A subsequent search or seizure is genuinely independent of an earlier unlawful search only if both the probable cause supporting the subsequent search or seizure is independent of the unlawful search and the subsequent search or seizure was not prompted by observations made during the unlawful search.
- On remand, the People bear the burden of establishing the genuine independence of the later evidence by a preponderance of the evidence, and the district court may allow additional evidence.
Key quotations
“The Court’s holding—that genuine independence of source requires not only that probable cause for the subsequent search or seizure be independent of any observations made during, or as the product of, an unlawful search, but also that the second search may not have been prompted by such observations—is in no way limited to a subsequent application for a search warrant.” (¶13)
“On remand, the district court, at its discretion, may allow the parties to present additional evidence, and the People bear the burden of establishing such genuine independence by a preponderance of the evidence.” (¶18)
Factual background
Police received a report that Haack had driven away from a hospital after medical personnel told him he was unsafe to drive. An officer soon saw Haack exit the driver's side of the described truck at his home, and Haack admitted while outside that he was not safe to drive. Officers later followed him into his residence without a warrant, detected an odor of alcohol, and ultimately obtained field-sobriety-test results, arrested him, and obtained a blood test after he left the residence.
Procedural history
Haack was charged with fourth-or-subsequent-offense DUI and DUI per se and moved to suppress evidence based on an alleged Miranda violation and an unlawful search of his home. The district court found that the warrantless entry violated Haack's constitutional rights and suppressed observations, statements, and other evidence obtained after the entry, while finding that Haack was not in Miranda custody until his arrest and that the field-sobriety and blood-test results would otherwise have been admissible. The People filed an interlocutory appeal. The Colorado Supreme Court vacated the suppression order in part and remanded for additional findings concerning derivative evidence and independent source.
Remand instructions
The district court must determine whether evidence acquired after Haack left his home was derivative of the unlawful entry and, if so, whether the subsequent searches, test results, and arrest were genuinely independent of the initial unlawful search. The court may allow the parties to present additional evidence, and the People must prove genuine independence by a preponderance of the evidence.