Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/04pdf/04-278.pdf
Page Number: 32

Cite as:  545 U. S. ____ (2005) 

5 

STEVENS, J., dissenting 

II 

Even if the Court had good reason to doubt the Court of 
Appeals’ determination of state law, it would, in my judg-
ment,  be  a  far  wiser  course  to  certify  the  question  to  the 
Colorado  Supreme  Court.3   Powerful  considerations  sup-
port certification in this case.  First, principles of federal-
ism and comity favor giving a State’s high court the oppor-
tunity  to  answer  important  questions  of  state  law, 
particularly when those questions implicate uniquely local 
matters  such  as  law  enforcement  and  might  well  require 
the  weighing  of  policy  considerations  for  their  correct 
resolution.4    See  Elkins  v.  Moreno,  435  U. S.  647,  662, 
—————— 

view,  the  Court  of  Appeals  did  not  “draw  upon  a  deep  well  of  state-
specific  expertise,”  ante,  at  8,  but  rather  examined  the  statute’s  text 
and  legislative  history  and  distinguished  arguably  relevant  Colorado 
case law.  See ante, at 8–9, and n. 4.  This rationale makes a mockery of 
our traditional practice, for it is precisely when there is no state law on 
point that the presumption that circuits have local expertise plays any 
useful role.  When a circuit’s resolution of a novel question of state law 
is grounded on a concededly complete review of all the pertinent state-
law  materials,  that  decision  is  entitled  to  deference.    Additionally,  it 
should  be  noted  that  this  is  not  a  case  in  which  the  Court  of  Appeals 
and  the  District  Court  disagreed  on  the  relevant  issue  of  state  law; 
rather, those courts disagreed only over the extent to which a probable-
cause  determination  requires  the  exercise  of  discretion.    Compare  366 
F. 3d,  at  1105–1110,  with  App.  to  Pet.  for  Cert.  122a  (District  Court 
opinion). 

3 See  Colo.  Rule  App.  Proc.  21.1(a)  (Colorado  Supreme  Court  may 
answer  questions  of  law  certified  to  it  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  or  another  federal  court  if  those  questions  “may  be 
determinative of the cause” and “as to which it appears to the certifying 
court there is no controlling precedent in the decisions of the [Colorado]
Supreme Court”). 

4 See  City  of  Westminster  v.  Dogan  Constr.  Co.,  930  P. 2d  585,  590 
(Colo.  1997)  (en  banc)  (in  interpreting  an  ambiguous  statute,  the 
Colorado  Supreme  Court  will  consider  legislative  history  and  the 
“consequences  of  a  particular  construction”);  ibid.  (“ ‘Because  we  also 
presume that legislation is intended to have just and reasonable effects, 
we must construe statutes accordingly and apply them so as to ensure 
such results’ ”).  Additionally, it is possible that the Colorado Supreme