Court Opinion

ID: 9561105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:03:27.595896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:36.571441
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE ERICKSON
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The facts outlined in the majority opinion reveal a failure on the part of the police to observe the protective principles embodied in Stone v. People, 174 Colo. 504, 485 P.2d 495 (1971). Stone, in which I mistakenly concurred, clearly mandates that an officer “must have a reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed, or is about to commit, a crime” in order to render his temporary detention constitutionally reasonable. The facts of this case do not bear out the conclusion that Montoya’s detention was based upon a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The majority claims that evidence linked the defendant to the car used in the Latimer burglary. This link, in my opinion, is so weak as to *17be almost non-existent. The fact that Olguin carried a notebook with Montoya’s name in it, and that this notebook was obtained in some manner by the police does not in any way connect the defendant with the vehicle used in the crime. Therefore, the suspicion generated by these circumstances was not sufficient, in my view, to support the constitutionality of the temporary detention.
In addition, the fact that the officer was aware of a “pick-up” outstanding on Montoya could not serve to justify the instant temporary detention. The pick-up order was in relation to another burglary — not the one for which the defendant was being temporarily detained. Furthermore, the facts do not establish that the pick-up for the prior burglary was based upon reasonable suspicion. Temporary detention cannot be founded upon guesswork and speculation. The officer’s conduct in this case was motivated by something less than reasonable suspicion.
Lastly, no probable cause existed to support the arrest of the defendant for possession of narcotics. The fact that an officer standing at the front door heard a toilet reservoir refilling — a questionable fact — together with his observation of needle marks on the defendant’s arms, simply does not establish probable cause that the defendant possessed narcotic drugs. Again, guesswork and speculation are not the servants of justice.