Opinion ID: 2632419
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Risk of Immediate Destruction of Evidence

Text: To establish that there was a risk of immediate destruction of evidence, the police must have an articulable basis upon which to justify a reasonable belief that evidence is about to be destroyed. Mendez v. People, 986 P.2d 275, 282 (Colo.1999). The question is whether there is a substantial likelihood that contraband or evidence might be removed or destroyed before a warrant could be obtained. Id. The perceived danger must be real and immediate, and the mere fact that the evidence is of a type that can be easily destroyed does not, in itself, constitute an exigent circumstance. Id. In Mendez, we held that there was a sufficient risk of immediate destruction of evidence to rise to the level of exigent circumstances where an officer investigating an outstanding arrest warrant smelled the distinct odor of burning marijuana emanating from [the defendant's] room. Id. We reasoned that [t]his odor indicated that evidence of a crime, that is, possession of marijuana, was in the process of being burned and thereby destroyed. Id. We thus concluded that these exigent circumstances justified entry into the defendant's motel room, such that the seizure of evidence found in plain view in the room was proper. Id. at 283. In this case, the police testified that they smelled burned marijuana from their position at the front door after Aarness and the three other occupants were removed from the first floor of the apartment, and after they had learned that there may be another person sleeping upstairs. At this point in time, the smell of burned marijuana did not indicate any risk that evidence was being destroyed because all of the occupants were already outside, except for one other person upstairs asleep. Thus, the facts of this case are clearly distinguishable from those in Mendez, and the smell of burned marijuana did not present exigent circumstances justifying police entry.