Court Opinion

ID: 9550720
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:41:09.313898+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:15.141309
License: Public Domain

*409MR. JUSTICE LEE
specially concurring:
I concur in the result. I disagree, however, with the reasons as set forth in the majority opinion.
In my view, when the investigator took the defendant to the conference room, locked the door, advised her of her rights, and told her she was under arrest — as the investigator testified he did — the defendant was effectively placed under arrest. This was more than a temporary detention for questioning.
The critical determination then is whether there was probable cause to justify the arrest. I agree with the trial court’s determination that there was probable cause for the arrest.
Correctional Officer Daniel A. Willyard testified he was posted at Tower 1 near the front gate with a clear view of the restroom. It was visitation day, and he was watching the restroom and parking lot carefully. His suspicion was aroused when he noticed first defendant’s companion, and then defendant and her daughter, leave the restroom, proceed to their car and then walk to the front gate. Defendant’s companion was looking back in a manner which appeared suspicious. Officer Willyard thought that she was looking for inmates who had not yet come out to the gang site.
It was a cold day, and ordinarily visitors wishing to use restroom facilities would have proceeded directly into the prison reception room. Officer Willyard therefore ordered a shakedown of the restroom. The search produced what appeared to be baggies of marijuana.
This was a penitentiary setting where, as is commonly known, the risk of smuggled contraband reaching inmates is ever present. Posted prison regulations prohibited such activity. Officer Willyard’s duty was to keep an eye on visitors in the parking and restroom areas. In view of these circumstances, and the officer’s -observation of defendant and her companion, it was not unreasonable for him to suspect that an offense had been or was about to be committed. A check of the restroom verified his suspicion. In Gallegos v. *410People, 157 Colo. 173, 401 P.2d 613, this Court said: “ ‘Probable cause’ was defined as early as 1897 in Stacey v. Emery, 97 U.S. 642, 645, 24 L.Ed. 1035, as a reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to warrant a cautious man to believe that an offense has been or is being committed by the person arrested. See also, Gonzales v. People, supra. Vague suspicion does not rise to the dignity of probable cause. * * *”
All the foregoing circumstances gave rise to more than a “vague suspicion.”
It is fundamental that it is not necessary that the facts and circumstances necessary to support a finding of probable cause be sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, I believe, as did the trial judge, that the facts and circumstances were sufficient to warrant a cautious prison official to believe the defendant had committed an offense which would justify her arrest.
I am authorized to say that MR. JUSTICE GROVES joins in this specially concurring opinion.