Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
Craig Spencer was pulled over for driving without license plates and arrested for driving while intoxicated. Trooper Hernandez, the arresting officer, advised Spencer of the express consent statute. Spencer chose a blood test.
Hernandez followed standard procedure. Medical personnel were unable to draw Spencer’s blood because they couldn’t find a suitable vein. Hernandez then told Spencer he had to submit to a breath test or suffer the consequences of a refusal to submit to a test. Spencer agreed, and the test showed a blood alcohol content of 0.089.
Spencer was charged with one count of felony DUI and one count of license plates improperly attached. Spencer moved to suppress the results of the breath test or dismiss the charges, arguing Hernandez violated the express consent statute.
The district court granted Spencer’s motion and suppressed evidence of the breath test.
Spencer was ultimately convicted of felony driving while impaired and a license plate violation.
The prosecution contended that the district court misapplied Colorado law by imposing a stricter standard for “extraordinary circumstances” than was established by the Supreme Court and that such an interpretation “would defeat the legislative intent” of the express consent statute. The Colorado Court of Appeals agreed.
By imposing a requirement that the prosecution prove that future attempts at a blood draw would have been unsuccessful, the district court improperly extended the prosecution’s evidentiary burden beyond what was required. Applying that holding and based on the undisputed relevant facts, this situation constituted an extraordinary circumstance excusing law enforcement’s failure to complete a blood test.
The appeals court disapproved the district court’s rulings.
This real property dispute among neighbors in a multi-unit condominium complex required the Colorado Court of Appeals to resolve a narrow question: Does a current owner’s offer to purchase a fellow owner’s unit constitute a third-party offer that triggers a right of first refusal held by the remaining owners under the complex’s governing declaration?
Based on the declaration’s terms and decisions from other jurisdictions that have confronted this issue, the appeals court concluded the answer was no.
The appeals court affirmed.