Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/04/21/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 01:51:10+00:00

Document:
On Wednesday, April 19, 2017, the Colorado State Judicial Branch announced the selection of two nominees to fill a vacancy on the Sedgwick County Court. The vacancy will be created by the resignation of Hon. Tera N. Neugebauer, effective May 1, 2017.
The two nominees are James Dolezal of Julesburg and Belinda Obermier of Julesburg. James Dolezal is an Investment Advisor Representative at JCD Wealth Management. Belinda Obermier is at Cabela’s in Sydney, Nebraska.
Under the Colorado Constitution, the governor has 15 days in which to appoint one of the nominees to the vacancy. Comments regarding either of the nominees may be emailed to the governor at gov_judicialappointments@state.co.us. For more information about the candidates, click here.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Hyde on Monday, April 17, 2017.
Searches and Seizures—Warrantless Blood Draw— Consent to Search.
In this interlocutory appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court considered whether a warrantless blood draw conducted on an unconscious driver pursuant to Colorado’s Expressed Consent Statute, C.R.S. § 42-4-1301.1, violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches. The court explained that by driving in Colorado, the driver consented to the terms of the statute, including its requirement that “[a]ny person who is dead or unconscious shall be tested to determine the alcohol or drug content of the person’s blood.” The court concluded that the driver’s prior statutory consent satisfied the consent exception to the warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment; therefore, the blood draw conducted in this case was constitutional. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court’s order suppressing the blood-draw evidence.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Simpson on Monday, April 17, 2017.
Searches and Seizures—Warrantless Blood Draw—Consent to Search.
Colorado’s Expressed Consent Statute, C.R.S. § 42-4-1301.1, provides that any motorist who drives on the roads of the state has consented to take a blood or breath test when requested to do so by a law enforcement officer with probable cause to suspect the motorist of driving under the influence. In this interlocutory appeal, the court reviewed the trial court’s ruling that an advisement accurately informing defendant of the statute amounted to coercion that rendered his consent to a blood test involuntary and required suppression of the test result. The court explained that by driving in Colorado, defendant consented to the terms of the statute, including its requirement that he submit to a blood draw under the circumstances present in this case. The court concluded that defendant’s prior statutory consent satisfied the consent exception to the warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment; therefore, the blood test conducted in this case was constitutional. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court’s suppression of the test result.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Fitzgerald v. People on Monday, April 17, 2017.
Searches and Seizures—Refusal to Submit to 12 Blood-Alcohol Testing—Admission of Refusal Evidence.
The Colorado Supreme Court considered whether the prosecution’s use of a defendant’s refusal to consent to blood-alcohol testing as evidence of guilt at trial for a drunk-driving offense, in accordance with the terms of Colorado’s Expressed Consent Statute, C.R.S. § 42-4-1301.1, violates the Fourth Amendment. Because the use of such refusal evidence does not impermissibly burden a defendant’s right to be free from unreasonable searches, the court concluded that the use of such refusal evidence does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court therefore affirmed the judgment of the district court.
On Thursday, April 20, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and five unpublished opinions.
Myers v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

References: v. 
 § 42
 v. 
 § 42
 v. 
 § 42
 v.