Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
People v. Cherry
Citations: 119 P.3d 1081; 2005 WL 2203154Docket: 05SA110
Court: Supreme Court of Colorado; September 12, 2005; Colorado; State Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed an interlocutory appeal from the People challenging a trial court's ruling that police officer Shawn Kurian violated Bernadette Cherry's Fourth Amendment rights by stopping her without reasonable suspicion. The trial court had suppressed evidence obtained during the stop, concluding that Kurian lacked a reasonable basis for contacting Cherry. The facts established that Cherry was parked illegally in the driving lane of a side street, prompting concerns for potential criminal activity. Upon Kurian's approach, two males near her vehicle walked away, and Kurian turned on his patrol lights to stop her. During the interaction, Kurian observed a cellophane bag with a green substance and cash in Cherry's handbag, which she admitted contained marijuana. After Cherry exited the vehicle, Kurian seized the marijuana and discovered crack cocaine during a pat-down. Cherry was charged with unlawful possession of a controlled substance and marijuana. Although Kurian cited a traffic statute as justification for stopping her, no citation was issued. Cherry argued at the suppression hearing that her stop was based solely on the officer's hunch, lacking a reasonable basis for suspicion. The trial court agreed and suppressed the evidence, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision, determining that the illegal parking provided a reasonable basis for the officer's stop, thus allowing the case to proceed. The trial court determined that Officer Kurian's testimony regarding the reason for stopping Cherry was not credible, concluding that the stop was intended to investigate a suspected crime rather than a traffic violation. The People filed an interlocutory appeal contesting the trial court's decision to suppress evidence obtained during the stop, arguing that Cherry was not subject to an illegal stop. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, allowing warrantless arrests based on probable cause of a crime. The legality of a traffic stop hinges on probable cause of a traffic violation. Relevant case law, including Devenpeck v. Alford and Whren v. United States, establishes that the subjective intent of an officer does not affect the legality of a stop; what matters are specific, articulable facts that support reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. In this case, Cherry was parked improperly, violating state statute regarding distance from the curb. Although the trial court found that Cherry was not obstructing traffic, this additional finding does not negate the violation of the parking statute. The court also noted that an officer's motivations do not invalidate a legal stop, affirming that the officers were justified in approaching Cherry’s vehicle for the parking violation, regardless of their subjective intent. The trial court's decision that Cherry was subjected to an illegal stop was determined to be erroneous. Consequently, the court's ruling is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. The excerpt also includes references to specific Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S. 2005) related to illegal stops and parking regulations. Notably, section 42-4-1205 outlines the requirements for parking on both two-way and one-way roadways, stipulating the positioning of vehicles relative to curbs and the allowances for local ordinances regarding angle parking. Violations of these parking provisions constitute a class B traffic infraction.