Court Opinion

ID: 9793017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:40:52.556939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:45.204519
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Lee
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an interlocutory appeal by the People from an unfavorable ruling which granted defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. We reverse the trial court’s ruling.
The facts are clearly set forth in the trial court’s findings, as follows:
“THE COURT: The Court is going to find, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, that on the date of October 16, 1969, at approximately the hour of 3:10 A.M. in the morning, Officer[s] Frazzini and Ives were on 14th Avenue westbound. The Defendant was on 14th Avenue eastbound, and as the two cars passed Officer [s] Frazzini and Ives believed they recognized the Defendant from a Police Bulletin that they had seen some two months prior where the Defendant was wanted for an assault and battery and failure to appear.
“The officer made a U-turn, went after the Defendant’s car, and turned on their red signal light and stopped the Defendant at 14th and Java Court. The police car was stopped behind the Defendant’s vehicle.
*514“At that time Officer Frazzini approached the Defendant and identified himself as a police officer, and Officer Ives went to the opposite side of the Defendant’s vehicle. Officer Frazzini asked the Defendant for identification and asked the Defendant to step to the police car so that the officer could run an identification check with the police bureau.
“That the Defendant stepped from the car and was placed into the custody of Ives and taken to the police car, that Officr Frazzini had ahold of the open door that the defendant alighted from while he was being removed to the police car, and Officer Frazzini noticed a kleenex box in front of the front seat and below the steering wheel on the driver’s side, and he observed an opening in the Kleenex box and observed a plastic baggy containing a greeny-brownish substance together with wheat-straw paper.
“He removed the plastic baggy together with the wheat-straw paper and started back to the police car, and the Defendant broke and ran and was apprehended and was placed under arrest for having in his possession what was believed to be a narcotic drug, namely cannibus [sic].”
The court concluded that defendant was under arrest at the time he was stopped and ordered from his car to the police car for an identification check; that no1 probable cause to arrest then existed; that the seizure of the suspected marijuana was incident to an invalid arrest; and that the motion to suppress as a matter of law must be granted.
The People do not challenge the findings of the court, which were supported by substantial evidence. However, the People contend that the court misapplied the law. We agree and hold that the court erred in granting the motion to suppress.
The court did not have the benefit of Stone v. People, 174 Colo. 504, 485 P.2d 495, wherein the matter of temporary detention for questioning was discussed. In *515Stone the Court stated:
“In order lawfully to detain an individual for questioning, (1) the officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed, or is about to commit, a crime; (2) the purpose of the detention must be reasonable; and (3) the character of the detention must be reasonable when considered in light of the purpose.”
True, under the circumstances of this case, probable cause for the arrest of the defendant did not exist at the time he was stopped and detained. The defendant was not in fact then believed to be engaged in criminal activity or about to engage in criminal activity, and no reasonable cause existed to so believe. However, as stated in Stone, supra, there is an area of proper police practice in which less than probable cause may still justify temporary detention for questioning. Such was the case here.
As measured by the Stone criteria, the officers by reason of the recent (two months old) police bulletin had cause to suspect that defendant had committed the offenses of assault and battery and failure to appear. Secondly, the purpose of the detention was to question the defendant as to his identification to determine if he was still wanted, certainly a reasonable purpose consistent with sound police procedures. And, lastly, the character of the detention, asking defendant for evidence of his identification and to remain in the police car while his identification check was made at headquarters, was reasonable when considered in light of the purpose of the detention.
We hold that a person suspected of being wanted for violation of a law, by reason of a recent police bulletin so indicating, may be reasonably detained for questioning concerning his identification and for determining whether such person is still wanted at the time of the detention.
The detention here being lawful, the “plain view” doctrine relating to contraband is applicable and seizure *516of the suspected marijuana was reasonable and consistent with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 88 S. Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067; People v. Baird, 172 Colo. 122, 470 P.2d 20; Marquez v. People, 168 Colo. 219, 450 P.2d 349.
The ruling is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consonant with the views announced herein.
Mr. Justice Ericksen dissenting.