Interlocutory Appeal from the District Court El Paso County
District Court Case No. 18CR4295 Honorable Jann P. DuBois,
Judge.
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant: Daniel H. May, District
Attorney, Fourth Judicial District Austin Lux, Deputy
District Attorney Doyle Baker, Senior Deputy District
Attorney Colorado Springs, Colorado
Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee: Megan A. Ring, Public
Defender Jeremy Wooten, Deputy Public Defender Colorado
Springs, Colorado
OPINION
Boatright Justice.
¶1
While on patrol, a police officer heard a man and woman
arguing behind the gate of a storage facility. When the
officer called dispatch to report the disturbance, he was
informed that a call had just come in regarding a possible
domestic disturbance involving a man named Alexis Brown at
that same location. Seconds later, the yelling stopped, and
the officer saw a man walking away from the storage facility;
the man was the only visible person in the area. The officer
stopped the man and asked his name. When the man gave his
name as Alexis Brown, the officer realized that it matched
the name given for the possible domestic disturbance. The
officer then ran a records check on Brown's name and
found that there was an active warrant for his arrest, at
which point Brown was taken into custody; a subsequent search
revealed methamphetamine in his pocket.
¶2
Brown was not charged for the domestic disturbance, but he
was charged based on the methamphetamine. Prior to trial, the
court concluded that the officer did not have reasonable
suspicion to initially stop Brown, and it thus suppressed all
evidence arising from the encounter. The People filed this
interlocutory appeal. We now reverse.
¶3
We conclude that the officer had reasonable articulable
suspicion that Brown was involved in an act of domestic
violence. Hence, we reverse the trial court's suppression
order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
I.
Facts and Procedural History
¶4
Officer Fernandes was in his police car, with the windows
down, on patrol near a storage facility in Colorado Springs.
As he passed the storage facility, he heard what he believed
to be a man and woman yelling on the other side of the
facility's locked gate, but he could not see the people.
The officer contacted police dispatch to advise them of this
disturbance. Dispatch informed the officer that they were
currently receiving a call regarding a possible domestic
disturbance at his location; specifically, a woman had called
to report that her significant other, Alexis Brown, had
damaged the windshield of her car. When the officer finished
communicating with dispatch, the yelling had stopped. At this
time, the officer saw a man leaving the area; the man was the
only person the officer saw. The officer contacted the man
and asked him to identify himself. The man identified himself
as Alexis Brown and provided his birthdate.
¶5
The officer ran a records check on Brown's name and
birthdate, which indicated that there was an active warrant
for Brown's arrest. Another officer arrived on the scene,
took Brown into custody, and brought him to jail. While Brown
was being searched prior to being put into the jail,
methamphetamine was found in his pocket. Ultimately, the
prosecution did not bring charges regarding the reported
domestic disturbance, but it did charge Brown with multiple
crimes based on the methamphetamine found in his
pocket.[1]
¶6
Brown moved to suppress the evidence arising from his
encounter with the officer, including the subsequent
discovery of methamphetamine. He argued that the police had
no reason to stop him. The court granted his motion, stating
that "[t]here was no nexus between this alleged criminal
activity and the defendant that would have justified an
investigatory stop. There's no description that was even
given to the officer of an alleged individual [who] had
supposedly committed these acts."
¶7
The People filed a timely interlocutory appeal.
II.
Jurisdiction and Standard of Review
¶8
Pursuant to C.A.R. 4.1 and section 16-12-102(2), C.R.S.
(2018), the People may bring an interlocutory appeal under
these circumstances.[2] The review of a suppression order presents
us with a mixed question of law and fact; therefore, we
accept the trial court's findings of fact that are
supported by competent evidence, but we review the
application of ...