Opinion ID: 1196963
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Warrantless Entry, Search, and Seizure in this Case

Text: As the reviewing court, we defer to the trial court's findings of fact if they are supported by the record. See Mendoza-Balderama, 981 P.2d at 158. We do not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court unless its findings are clearly erroneous or lack evidentiary support. See id. The legal effect of the operative historical facts constitutes a question of law which is subject to de novo review. See People v. Winpigler, No. 99SA272, ___ P.2d ___, ___, 1999 WL 1095470,  (Colo. Dec.6, 1999). The prosecution argues the existence of probable cause based solely on a neighbor's 911 report of a possible burglary in progress. She reported observing one man enter the apartment through a window and then open the door to let another man into the apartment. She did not think either of the men lived in the apartment, but she was concerned about being mistaken. The trial court found that the police saw no objective signs of any sort of burglary in progress to support the neighbor's suspicion. Unlike Unruh and Berow, these officers had no report of the residents being on vacation or away from home; they observed no signs of forced entry; they did not hear any noises, see any movement, or observe any other circumstances suggesting a burglary. To the contrary, the officers observed through the window a man who appeared to be comfortably at home sitting on a couch. He answered the front door when they knocked. He was not armed; he presented no apparent threat to the officers. Instead of announcing the reason for their presence and attempting to ascertain whether he and the other man were on the premises legitimately, they immediately handcuffed Thompson, a resident, and proceeded to question, handcuff, and search his guest who was taking a shower. [3] Based on evidentiary facts of record, [4] the trial court determined that the police officers' observations on the scene did not establish probable cause to believe that there was a burglary in progress. The police are expected to use their knowledge, experience, and training in making observations and conducting investigations, and to proceed reasonably under the circumstances. See People v. Pate, 705 P.2d 519, 522 (Colo.1985). The two men within the apartment were acting nonchalantly, as if they belonged there. Taking into account the facts known to the police, the trial court found that a reasonable person would conclude that whoever entered that apartment through the window had done so because he probably had locked his key inside. We agree with the trial court's conclusion of law, based on the record and its factual findings, that probable cause did not exist for this warrantless entry, search, and seizure. The prosecution bore the burden of proving both probable cause and exigent circumstances to believe that a burglary was occurring which required the police to immediately respond. The prosecution did not meet its burden. Hence, it may not use the evidence gained from the warrantless entry, nor its fruits. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484-85, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); Winpigler, ___ P.2d at ___, 1999 WL 1095470 at . The trial court correctly granted Grazier's motion to suppress the evidence found in the pockets of his pants, other items of his found in the apartment and his fanny pack, and his statements to police.