Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2010/05/11/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 00:00:06+00:00

Document:
The Tenth Circuit issued no published opinions and five unpublished opinions on May 11, 2010.
Gov. Bill Ritter yesterday signed into law HB 10-1242 as part of the state’s health care reform initiative.
The bill requires all insurance carriers to use a uniform insurance application for applicants to complete when they apply for individual health insurance coverage. In the past, consumers completed a separate, and often lengthy and detailed, application for each insurance company whose coverage they hoped to obtain. With the passage of HB 10-1242, consumers will complete a single application that is accepted by all insurance carriers to whom they submit the form, thus drastically reducing the amount of paperwork that consumers must complete.
This bill was created with the consumer in mind. By having one master application, we are helping consumers choose the best carrier for their needs by being able to easily compare prices and offerings. We are saving consumers’ time while promoting healthy competition among businesses. Are you tired of filling out multiple forms as you look for insurance? It is time for us to tell consumers that yes; there is finally an app for that!
HB 10-1242 was co-sponsored by Sen. Lois Tochtrop (D-Thornton). The standardized insurance applications will come into use on January 1, 2012.
For more details about the bill, see here.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Pineda v. People on May 10, 2010.
Fourth Amendment—Inventory Searches—Searches Incident to Arrest.
The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ denial of defendant Pineda’s motion to suppress heroin evidence found in his vehicle when he was arrested. The trial court initially denied Pineda’s motion to suppress, determining that the evidence was discovered pursuant to a valid search incident to arrest. The court of appeals affirmed. However, after the court of appeals issued its decision, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Arizona v. Gant, __ U.S. __, 129 S.Ct. 1710 (2009), which reformulated the application of the search-incident-to-arrest exception involving motor vehicles. The Court did not decide whether the search-incident-to-arrest exception continues to apply in this case post-Gant. Instead, the Court affirmed on alternate grounds, holding that the heroin evidence was admissible because it was discovered pursuant to a valid inventory search of the vehicle.
Summary and full case also available here.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Perez v. People on May 10, 2010.
Fourth Amendment—Impact of Arizona v. Gant on a Search and Seizure.
The Supreme Court held that, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. Gant, __ U.S. __, 129 S.Ct. 1710 (2009), a search of a glove compartment in a car is unlawful where the driver was not within reaching distance of the vehicle’s passenger compartment and there was no indication that any evidence of the offense of arrest would be found in the car. Even if the driver disclaimed any possessory interest in the glove compartment, his possessory interest in the car itself prevents an officer from entering the vehicle to access the glove compartment. The Court further held that Perez’s presence at the unlawful search renders the confession resulting from that search inadmissible as evidence. The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the case is remanded with directions to return it to the district court for further action consistent with this opinion.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in In re People v. Day on May 10, 2010.
Criminal Law—Sexual Assault—Sexual Assault Pattern of Abuse Sentence Enhancer—CRS §§ 18-3-405, -405.3, and -401—Statutory Construction—Attempted Sexual Assault not a Basis for Pattern of Abuse Conviction or Sentencing—Trial Judge Instructions—Jury Verdict Forms—Original Proceeding—C.A.R. 21.
In this original proceeding, defendant Day challenged the trial court’s indeterminate ten-year-to-life sentence after applying the pattern of sexual abuse enhancement provision, CRS § 18-3-405(2)(d). Day was convicted of attempted sexual assault on a child, in violation of CRS § 18-3-405(1), and attempted sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust, in violation of CRS § 18-3-405.3(1) and (2)(a). When sentencing Day, the trial court applied the pattern of sexual abuse sentence enhancer, pursuant to CRS § 18-3-405(2)(d).
The Supreme Court held that the trial court erred as a matter of law in applying the pattern of sexual abuse sentence enhancer to Day’s judgment of conviction, because the jury found Day guilty only of attempted sexual assault. Accordingly, the Court returned this case to the trial court for resentencing based on the two attempted sexual assault on a child convictions.
The United States Supreme Court issued two opinions last week.
In Hui v. Castaneda, the Court resolved the question as to whether Bivens actions are barred and the Federal Tort Claims Act is the sole remedy in medical claims involving treatment by public health service personnel.
In Renico v. Lett, the Court reversed a Sixth Circuit decision granting habeas relief because a trial judge’s sua sponte declaration of a mistrial was not an “unreasonable application of” “clearly established federal law” under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA).
In United States v. Campbell, the Defendant appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress and his request for hearing. The Court affirmed the district court’s decision.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its decision in People v. McCarty on May 10, 2010.
Vehicle Searches Incident to Arrest—Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule.
The People brought an interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court, as authorized by CRS § 16-12-102(2) and C.A.R. 4.1, challenging the district court’s suppression of drugs seized from a vehicle driven by defendant. After being followed from an import store that was the object of police surveillance and being stopped for a traffic infraction, defendant conceded buying a “pot pipe” at the store, took the wrapped pipe from his pocket, and turned it over to the police. The district court found that these circumstances did not provide the officers with probable cause to search defendant’s vehicle or justify a search of the vehicle incident to defendant’s arrest.
The Court held that, under the circumstances as determined by the district court, the arresting officers lacked probable cause to support a warrantless search of defendant’s vehicle or justification for a search incident to his arrest, as that doctrine was subsequently clarified in Arizona v. Gant, __ U.S.__, 129 S.Ct. 1710 (2009). The Court also held that the officers’ search did not fall within any recognized good-faith exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. The Court therefore affirmed the district court’s order suppressing the drugs seized from defendant’s vehicle and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Chamberlain on May 10, 2010.
Vehicle Searches Incident to Arrest.
The People brought an interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court pursuant to CRS § 16-12-102(2) and C.A.R. 4.1, challenging the district court’s suppression of drugs and drug paraphernalia seized from defendant’s vehicle during a search incident to her arrest. Although the district court initially denied the motion, it entertained a motion for reconsideration and reversed its earlier ruling following the release of Arizona v. Gant, __ U.S. __, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009). Because it was undisputed that defendant had already been arrested, handcuffed, and placed in a patrol car at the time of the search and because it would not have been reasonable for the officers to believe that defendant’s vehicle might contain evidence relevant to false reporting, the crime for which she was arrested, the Court affirmed the suppression order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its decision in Smith v. Executive Custom Homes on May 10, 2010.
Construction Defect Action Reform Act—Personal Injury Claims—Claim Accrual—Statute of Limitations—Statutory Interpretation—Repair Doctrine—Equitable Tolling.
In this appeal from a grant of summary judgment, the Supreme Court held that claims for personal injury under the Construction Defect Action Reform Act begin to accrue for purposes of the two-year statute of limitations at the time the claimant first discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the physical manifestations of the defect that ultimately causes the injury. The Court further held that the statute’s notice of claim and tolling provisions preclude equitable tolling under the repair doctrine.
The Court reverses the ruling of the court of appeals. The case is remanded with instructions to affirm the ruling of the trial court.
The Rocky Mountain Appellate Blog covered the case in more depth yesterday.
CBA-CLE publishes the Practitioner’s Guide to Colorado Construction Law–the definitive desktop guide for Colorado construction law attorneys.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 18
 § 18
 § 18
 § 18
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 16
 v. 
 v. 
 § 16
 v. 
 v.