The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado v. Joshua M. AARNESS

<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2024-03-27">
<div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc">
<link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link>
<div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div href="/vid/890887158" data-vids="890887158" class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Header">
<p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">150 P.3d 1271</b></span></p>
<p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-party"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-name">The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></b></span><b class="ldml-bold">
v.</b><b class="ldml-bold">
<span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Joshua M. AARNESS</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span>.</b></p>
<p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-cite">No. 05SC237</span>.</b></p>
<p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>, En Banc.</b></p>
<p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-date">October 23, 2006</span>.</b></p>
<p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-date">As Modified on Denial of Rehearing January 16, 2007</span>.</b></p>
</div>
<div class="ldml-counsel header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Counsel"><p data-paragraph-id="218" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="150" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-val="1273" data-id="pagenumber_218"></span> <span data-paragraph-id="218" data-sentence-id="226" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">John W. Suthers</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Attorney General</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Katherine A. Hansen</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Appellate Division</span>, Criminal Justice <span class="ldml-entity">Section</span>, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="372" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"> <span data-paragraph-id="372" data-sentence-id="380" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">David S. Kaplan</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Colorado State <span class="ldml-entity">Public Defender</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Ned R. Jaeckle</span></span>, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span>.</span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="489" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"> <span class="ldml-opinionauthor content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion (BENDER)"><span data-paragraph-id="489" data-sentence-id="497" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Justice <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">BENDER</span></span> <span class="ldml-opiniontype">delivered <span class="ldml-entity">the Opinion of <span class="ldml-entity">the Court</span></span></span></span>.</span></span>
</p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-ordinal_start="1" data-parsed="true" data-ordinal_end="1" data-value="I. Introduction" data-specifier="I" data-types="introduction" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-content-heading-label="I. Introduction
" data-confidences="very_high" id="heading_548" data-id="heading_548"><span data-paragraph-id="548" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="548" data-sentence-id="548" class="ldml-sentence">I.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="548" data-sentence-id="551" class="ldml-sentence">Introduction</span></b>
</span></section><p data-paragraph-id="564" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="564" data-sentence-id="572" class="ldml-sentence">In this appeal, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> review and reverse <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895586284" data-vids="895586284" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_572"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Aarness</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">116 P.3d 1233</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2005</span>)</span></a></span>, in which <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> held that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> erroneously denied <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span> <span class="ldml-entity">Joshua M. Aarness</span>'s <span class="ldml-entity">motion to suppress evidence</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="564" data-sentence-id="795" class="ldml-sentence">While <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> agree with <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span>' application of the two-pronged <span class="ldml-entity">standard articulated in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894725812" data-vids="894725812" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_795"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Payton v. New York</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">445 U.S. 573</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">100 S.Ct. 1371</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">63 L.Ed.2d 639</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1980</span>)</span></a></span></span>, which determines when police may enter a home seeking to arrest the subject of an arrest warrant, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> hold that the existence of exigent circumstances constitutes an independent basis justifying police entry into the residence to arrest Aarness.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="1210" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="1210" data-sentence-id="1218" class="ldml-sentence">Before his trial, Aarness moved to suppress all of the evidence seized as fruits of an unlawful search, arguing that the police entered and searched his home in violation of his rights under the <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1218"><span class="ldml-cite">Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">and</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1218"><span class="ldml-cite">article II, section 7 of the Colorado Constitution</span></a></span></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1210" data-sentence-id="1521" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The trial court</span> denied the motion.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="1556" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="1556" data-sentence-id="1564" class="ldml-sentence">On appeal, Aarness argued that the police unlawfully entered his dwelling under the standard established by the <span class="ldml-entity">United States Supreme Court in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894725812" data-vids="894725812" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1564"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Payton</i></span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1556" data-sentence-id="1715" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court of appeals</span> agreed, adhering to the two-pronged <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894725812" data-vids="894725812" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1715"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Payton</i></span></a></span> standard</span>: before entering a residence to execute an arrest warrant, the police must have a reasonable belief that the arrestee both <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> lives in the residence, and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> is within the residence at the time of entry.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1556" data-sentence-id="1993" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895586284" data-vids="895586284" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1715"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Aarness</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">116 P.3d at 1237</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1556" data-sentence-id="2020" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court of appeals</span> held that the police entry violated the first prong of <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894725812" data-vids="894725812" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2020"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Payton</i></span></a></span> standard</span> because the police had no information that Aarness lived in the apartment where <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> arrested him.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1556" data-sentence-id="2215" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895586284" data-vids="895586284" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2020"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 1239</span></a></span>.</span>
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="150" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-val="1274" data-id="pagenumber_2228"></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="2228" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="2228" data-sentence-id="2236" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court of appeals</span> also held that no exception to the warrant requirement applied to justify the entry.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2228" data-sentence-id="2342" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895586284" data-vids="895586284" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2236"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="2228" data-sentence-id="2346" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court</span> found the plain view and protective sweep doctrines inapplicable because the police were not lawfully on the premises, and declined to address whether exigent circumstances justified the entry because <span class="ldml-entity">the People</span> did not raise the issue below.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2228" data-sentence-id="2599" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895586284" data-vids="895586284" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2346"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="2603" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="2603" data-sentence-id="2611" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court of appeals</span> concluded that any evidence seized as a result of the unlawful entry must be suppressed and reversed Aarness's convictions.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2603" data-sentence-id="2756" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895586284" data-vids="895586284" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2611"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 1240</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2603" data-sentence-id="2769" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The People</span> appealed and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> granted certiorari.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="2816" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="2816" data-sentence-id="2824" class="ldml-sentence">Here, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> choose to follow the two-pronged <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894725812" data-vids="894725812" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2824"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Payton</i></span></a></span> standard</span>, and hold that the <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2824"><span class="ldml-cite">Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">and</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2824"><span class="ldml-cite">article II, section 7 of the Colorado Constitution</span></a></span></span></span> require police to meet two requirements before entering a residence to execute an arrest warrant: <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> police must have a reasonable belief that the suspect lives in the residence, and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> police must have a reasonable belief that the suspect is within the residence when <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> enter.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2816" data-sentence-id="3290" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894725812" data-vids="894725812" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3290"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Payton</i></span></a></span> standard</span> does not apply where exigent circumstances exist as an independent basis to justify entry into a home.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2816" data-sentence-id="3413" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894725812" data-vids="894725812" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_3458,sentence_3290"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Payton</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">445 U.S. at 583</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">100 S.Ct. 1371</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">recognizing that exigent circumstances may justify warrantless entry into a residence to make an arrest</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3290"><span class="ldml-refname">3 Wayne R. LaFave, <i class="ldml-italics">Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment</i></span> <span class="ldml-cite">§ 6.1<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(f)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4th ed.2004)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(same)</span></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="3669" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="3669" data-sentence-id="3677" class="ldml-sentence">Although the two-pronged <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894725812" data-vids="894725812" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3677"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Payton</i></span></a></span> test</span> was not satisfied in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>, exigent circumstances constituted an independent basis to justify police entry.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3669" data-sentence-id="3826" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, the entry and subsequent search were constitutional and <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s denial of Aarness's <span class="ldml-entity">motion to suppress evidence</span> was proper even though <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894725812" data-vids="894725812" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3826"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Payton</i></span></a></span> standard</span> was not satisfied.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3669" data-sentence-id="4016" class="ldml-sentence">Hence, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> hold that Aarness's <span class="ldml-entity">motion to suppress</span> was properly denied by <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>, and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> reverse <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span>' judgment and remand <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> to <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> to be returned to <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> to reinstate Aarness's convictions.</span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-ordinal_start="2" data-parsed="true" data-ordinal_end="2" data-value="II. Facts and Proceedings Below" data-specifier="II" data-types="background" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-content-heading-label="II. Facts and Proceedings Below
" data-confidences="very_high" id="heading_4266" data-id="heading_4266"><span data-paragraph-id="4266" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="4266" data-sentence-id="4266" class="ldml-sentence">II.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4266" data-sentence-id="4270" class="ldml-sentence">Facts and Proceedings Below</span></b>
</span></section><p data-paragraph-id="4298" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="4298" data-sentence-id="4306" class="ldml-sentence">Police received an anonymous tip that Aarness had arrest warrants outstanding.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4298" data-sentence-id="4385" class="ldml-sentence">The tip also gave Aarness's physical description as being about six feet tall and 180 pounds with red hair and green eyes, reported <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> was armed with a loaded .38 caliber handgun, and provided the address of an apartment where <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> was located.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4298" data-sentence-id="4628" class="ldml-sentence">Police verified the existence of the outstanding arrest warrants, one of which involved a parole violation in California, before going to the named apartment, but neither investigated whether Aarness lived at the apartment nor obtained a search warrant for the premises.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="4899" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="4899" data-sentence-id="4907" class="ldml-sentence">Six police officers went to the named apartment and three of them knocked on the door with their guns drawn.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4899" data-sentence-id="5016" class="ldml-sentence">When Aarness's <span class="ldml-entity">brother</span> opened the door, the officers immediately recognized Aarness from his description, sitting in a recliner.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4899" data-sentence-id="5145" class="ldml-sentence">Because Aarness had shoved his hand between the recliner's cushion and armrest, the officers yelled at him, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Show <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> your hands."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="4899" data-sentence-id="5275" class="ldml-sentence">The police testified that from their position outside the front door Aarness appeared nervous and excited and seemed to be in a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"fight or flight mood."</span></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="5427" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="5427" data-sentence-id="5435" class="ldml-sentence">The police pulled <span class="ldml-entity">the brother</span> out of the apartment by his shirt and ordered two other individuals out of the apartment because <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> were concerned for the safety of those present.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5427" data-sentence-id="5615" class="ldml-sentence">By the time the other occupants had vacated the apartment, Aarness still had not complied with police orders to raise his hands.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="5744" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="5744" data-sentence-id="5752" class="ldml-sentence">A few seconds later, Aarness put his hands up.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5744" data-sentence-id="5799" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The trial court</span> found that the police then entered the apartment to arrest Aarness.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5744" data-sentence-id="5883" class="ldml-sentence">The police searched all four persons and found drugs and a loaded handgun clip on Aarness and drugs on another person.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5744" data-sentence-id="6002" class="ldml-sentence">One of the occupants informed police that another person remained in the apartment.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5744" data-sentence-id="6086" class="ldml-sentence">After receiving no response to their calls and detecting the smell of burned marijuana emanating from the apartment, police again entered the apartment and located the other person, a tenant, in an upstairs bedroom.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5744" data-sentence-id="6302" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">They</span> found drugs on his person.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5744" data-sentence-id="6334" class="ldml-sentence">While in the apartment, police observed drug paraphernalia and a handgun in plain view, but did not seize these items at that time.</span>
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="150" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-val="1275" data-id="pagenumber_6466"></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="6466" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="6466" data-sentence-id="6474" class="ldml-sentence">The police secured the apartment and received the tenant's consent to search.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6466" data-sentence-id="6552" class="ldml-sentence">Police then searched the apartment and seized drugs, the handgun, and drug paraphernalia.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6466" data-sentence-id="6642" class="ldml-sentence">With consent, police also searched an occupant's car and seized a handgun which the occupant said belonged to Aarness.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="6761" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="6761" data-sentence-id="6769" class="ldml-sentence">Aarness was charged with drug and weapons violations.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6761" data-sentence-id="6823" class="ldml-sentence">Before trial, <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> moved to suppress all of the items seized as the fruits of an unlawful search.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6761" data-sentence-id="6919" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The trial court</span> ruled that the police actions were lawful because the police were executing an arrest warrant.<a href="#note-fr1-1" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr1-1">1</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="6761" data-sentence-id="7030" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court</span> reasoned that although police lacked a search warrant, the arrest warrant provided them with the legal authority to enter the apartment and execute the arrest.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6761" data-sentence-id="7200" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The trial court</span> thus denied Aarness's <span class="ldml-entity">motion to suppress</span> and admitted the seized weapons, drugs, and drug paraphernalia into evidence at Aarness's trial.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="7354" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="7354" data-sentence-id="7362" class="ldml-sentence">Aarness appealed his convictions to <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span>, arguing that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> erred when it denied his <span class="ldml-entity">motion to suppress</span> because the police did not have a reasonable belief that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> lived at the apartment.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7354" data-sentence-id="7577" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court of appeals</span> agreed, applying <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity">United States Supreme Court</span>'s holding in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894725812" data-vids="894725812" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7577"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Payton</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">445 U.S. 573</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">100 S.Ct. 1371</span></a></span></span>, as interpreted by a majority of <span class="ldml-entity">federal circuit courts</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7354" data-sentence-id="7754" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895586284" data-vids="895586284" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7577"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Aarness</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">116 P.3d at 1237</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7354" data-sentence-id="7781" class="ldml-sentence">Implementing the two-pronged <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894725812" data-vids="894725812" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7781"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Payton</i></span></a></span> standard</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> held that before entering a dwelling to execute an arrest warrant, police must have a reasonable belief both that the suspect lives in the dwelling and that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> is then present within.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7354" data-sentence-id="8021" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895586284" data-vids="895586284" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7781"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="7354" data-sentence-id="8025" class="ldml-sentence">Because the police had no information that Aarness lived in the apartment, <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> held their entry unlawful pursuant to <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894725812" data-vids="894725812" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8025"><span class="ldml-refname">Payton</span></a></span>.</i></span> <span data-paragraph-id="7354" data-sentence-id="8167" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895586284" data-vids="895586284" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8025"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 1238</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7354" data-sentence-id="8180" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court</span> held all of the evidence inadmissible pursuant to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine because it was seized as a direct result of the unlawful entry.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7354" data-sentence-id="8345" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895586284" data-vids="895586284" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8180"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 1239-40</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7354" data-sentence-id="8361" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> reversed Aarness's conviction and remanded to <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> for further proceedings.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7354" data-sentence-id="8475" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895586284" data-vids="895586284" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8361"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 1240</span></a></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="8488" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="8488" data-sentence-id="8496" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> granted certiorari on the question of whether <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> erred in concluding that the police entry into Aarness's home was unlawful under <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894725812" data-vids="894725812" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8496"><span class="ldml-refname">Payton</span></a></span>.</i><a href="#note-fr1-2" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr1-2">2</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="8488" data-sentence-id="8655" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The People</span> argue that when the police are executing an arrest warrant in a residence, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894725812" data-vids="894725812" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8655"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Payton</i></span></a></span> requires only that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> have a reasonable belief that the subject of an arrest warrant is in the residence, not that the arrestee lives there.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8488" data-sentence-id="8891" class="ldml-sentence">Aarness argues that <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> correctly interpreted <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894725812" data-vids="894725812" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8891"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Payton</i></span></a></span> to include two reasonable belief prongs.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="9002" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="9002" data-sentence-id="9010" class="ldml-sentence">To determine whether Aarness's constitutional rights were violated, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> interpret <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894725812" data-vids="894725812" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9010"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Payton's</i></span></a></span> requirements regarding entry of a residence to execute an arrest warrant.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9002" data-sentence-id="9174" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> begin with the constitutional prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures.</span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-ordinal_start="3" data-parsed="true" data-ordinal_end="3" data-value="III. Analysis" data-specifier="III" data-types="analysis" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-content-heading-label="III. Analysis
" data-confidences="very_high" id="heading_9258" data-id="heading_9258"><span data-paragraph-id="9258" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="9258" data-sentence-id="9258" class="ldml-sentence">III.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9258" data-sentence-id="9263" class="ldml-sentence">Analysis</span></b>
</span></section><p data-paragraph-id="9272" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="9272" data-sentence-id="9280" class="ldml-sentence">The <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9280"><span class="ldml-cite">Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">and</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9280"><span class="ldml-cite">article II, section 7 of the Colorado Constitution</span></a></span></span></span> proscribe all unreasonable searches and seizures.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9272" data-sentence-id="9440" class="ldml-sentence">Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable unless justified by one of the well-established exceptions to the Warrant Clause of the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9440"><span class="ldml-cite">Fourth Amendment</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9272" data-sentence-id="9631" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894725812" data-vids="894725812" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9440"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Payton</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">445 U.S. at 586</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">100 S.Ct. 1371</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886835860" data-vids="886835860" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9440"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Hebert</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">46 P.3d 473, 478</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">2002</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="9720" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="9720" data-sentence-id="9728" class="ldml-sentence">In <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894725812" data-vids="894725812" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9728"><span class="ldml-refname">Payton</span></a></span>,</i> the <span class="ldml-entity">United States Supreme Court</span> established the constitutional standard for police entry into a residence to execute an arrest warrant.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9720" data-sentence-id="9875" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894725812" data-vids="894725812" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9728"><span class="ldml-cite">445 U.S. 573</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">100 S.Ct. 1371</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">63 L.Ed.2d 639</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9720" data-sentence-id="9921" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The Court</span> concluded that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"an arrest warrant founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="150" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-val="1276" data-id="pagenumber_10073"></span>suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is within."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="9720" data-sentence-id="10143" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894725812" data-vids="894725812" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9921"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 603</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">100 S.Ct. 1371</span></a></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="10171" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="10171" data-sentence-id="10179" class="ldml-sentence">A majority of <span class="ldml-entity">federal circuit courts</span>, including the Tenth Circuit, have interpreted <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894725812" data-vids="894725812" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10179"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Payton</i></span></a></span> standard</span> as containing two prongs: police must have reason to believe<a href="#note-fr1-3" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr1-3">3</a> that the suspect <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> lives in the residence, and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> is within the residence at the time of entry.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10171" data-sentence-id="10443" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">E.g.</span>, </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893188243" data-vids="893188243" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10179"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">United States v. Veal</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">453 F.3d 164, 167</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">3d Cir.</span><span class="ldml-date">2006</span>)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/884689301" data-vids="884689301" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10179"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">United States v. Gay</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">240 F.3d 1222, 1226</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">10th Cir.</span><span class="ldml-date">2001</span>)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895501368" data-vids="895501368" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10179"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">United States v. Lovelock</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">170 F.3d 339, 343</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">2d Cir.</span><span class="ldml-date">1999</span>)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890760333" data-vids="890760333" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10179"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">United States v. Route</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">104 F.3d 59, 62</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">5th Cir.</span><span class="ldml-date">1997</span>)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892377148" data-vids="892377148" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10179"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">United States v. Risse</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">83 F.3d 212, 216</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">8th Cir.</span><span class="ldml-date">1996</span>)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889334448" data-vids="889334448" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10179"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">United States v. Magluta</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">44 F.3d 1530, 1533</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">11th Cir.</span><span class="ldml-date">1995</span>)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885208766" data-vids="885208766" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10179"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">United States v. May</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">68 F.3d 515, 516</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">D.C.Cir.</span><span class="ldml-date">1995</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10171" data-sentence-id="10854" class="ldml-sentence">No <span class="ldml-entity">federal circuit court</span> has expressly rejected this two-pronged <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894725812" data-vids="894725812" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10854"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Payton</i></span></a></span> standard</span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="10936" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="10936" data-sentence-id="10944" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> follow the majority of jurisdictions and hold that police may enter a residence to execute an arrest warrant only when <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> have reasonable belief that the subject of the arrest warrant both <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> lives at the residence, and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> is within the residence at the time of entry.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="11220" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="11220" data-sentence-id="11228" class="ldml-sentence">Several considerations support this two-pronged analysis.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11220" data-sentence-id="11286" class="ldml-sentence">First, this standard is consistent with Colorado and federal <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11286"><span class="ldml-cite">Fourth Amendment</span></a></span> jurisprudence regarding the reasonableness of police entry without a search warrant.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11220" data-sentence-id="11449" class="ldml-sentence">Both the <span class="ldml-entity">U.S. Supreme Court</span> and <span class="ldml-entity">this Court</span> look to what the police knew at the time of entry, not to facts that later became apparent.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11220" data-sentence-id="11584" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892507603" data-vids="892507603" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_11664,sentence_11449"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">United States v. Banks</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">540 U.S. 31, 37</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">124 S.Ct. 521</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">157 L.Ed.2d 343</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2003</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">holding</span> that whether police had a reasonable suspicion of exigent circumstances is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"revealed by the circumstances known to the officers"</span> at the time of entry</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886453035" data-vids="886453035" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_11911,sentence_11449"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">United States v. Ramirez</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">523 U.S. 65, 71 n. 2</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">118 S.Ct. 992</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">140 L.Ed.2d 191</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1998</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">holding</span> that the lawfulness of entry and existence of probable cause concerns only what the officers had reason to believe at the time of their entry</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889812804" data-vids="889812804" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_12111,sentence_11449"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Pate</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">71 P.3d 1005, 1010</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">2003</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">holding</span> that <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> must examine the totality of circumstances as <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> would have appeared to the police officer at the time the decision to conduct a warrantless entry was made, to determine whether an exception to the warrant requirement is met</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11220" data-sentence-id="12360" class="ldml-sentence">It follows that police must have a reasonable belief that the suspect lives at the residence at the time of entry and cannot rely on facts that become apparent after the entry to justify their incursion into a private residence.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="12589" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="12589" data-sentence-id="12597" class="ldml-sentence">Second, the two-pronged requirement satisfies the policy goals underlying <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12597"><span class="ldml-cite">Fourth Amendment</span></a></span> search and seizure jurisprudence.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12589" data-sentence-id="12722" class="ldml-sentence">As <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> noted, requiring police to have a reasonable belief both that the subject of the arrest warrant lives at the residence and that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> is present deters warrantless searches of residences of third <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12589" data-sentence-id="12948" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895586284" data-vids="895586284" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12722"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Aarness</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">116 P.3d at 1237-38</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12589" data-sentence-id="12978" class="ldml-sentence">These requirements are also consistent with <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">the Supreme Court</span>'s holding in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889921057" data-vids="889921057" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12978"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Steagald v. United States</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">451 U.S. 204, 205-06, 216</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">101 S.Ct. 1642</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">68 L.Ed.2d 38</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1981</span>)</span></a></span></span>, requiring a search warrant to execute an arrest in a third <span class="ldml-entity">party</span>'s residence to protect <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12978"><span class="ldml-cite">Fourth Amendment</span></a></span> rights</span> of the third <span class="ldml-entity">party</span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="13281" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="13281" data-sentence-id="13289" class="ldml-sentence">Having approved of the two-pronged <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894725812" data-vids="894725812" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13289"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Payton</i></span></a></span> analysis</span> requiring police to have reasonable belief that the arrestee both <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> lives in the residence, and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> is within the residence at the time of entry, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> turn to <span class="ldml-entity">the facts of <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span></span>.</span>
</p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-ordinal_start="1" data-ordinal_end="1" data-value="A. Application of the Payton Standard" data-specifier="A" data-parsed="true" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-content-heading-label="A. Application of the Payton Standard
" id="heading_13523" data-id="heading_13523"><span data-paragraph-id="13523" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="13523" data-sentence-id="13523" class="ldml-sentence">A.</span> </b><span data-paragraph-id="13523" data-sentence-id="13526" class="ldml-sentence"><b class="ldml-bold">Application of the</b> <b class="ldml-bold">Payton</b> <b class="ldml-bold">Standard</b></span>
</span></section><p data-paragraph-id="13561" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="13561" data-sentence-id="13569" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> agree with <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> that the police violated <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894725812" data-vids="894725812" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13569"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Payton</i></span></a></span> standard in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13561" data-sentence-id="13663" class="ldml-sentence">Even if the anonymous tip gave the police reason to believe that Aarness was
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="150" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-val="1277" data-id="pagenumber_13740"></span>at the apartment at the time of entry, as discussed by <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> below, the police had no reason to believe that Aarness lived at that address because it is undisputed that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> had no information regarding whether Aarness lived there before executing the arrest warrant.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13561" data-sentence-id="14023" class="ldml-sentence">Hence, the arrest warrant does not provide authority for police entry.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="14094" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="14094" data-sentence-id="14102" class="ldml-sentence">Although the facts here do not satisfy <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894725812" data-vids="894725812" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14102"><span class="ldml-refname">Payton</span></a></span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that exigent circumstances constituted an independent basis to justify police entry into the home to arrest Aarness.</span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-ordinal_start="2" data-ordinal_end="2" data-value="B. Exigent Circumstances" data-specifier="B" data-parsed="true" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-content-heading-label="B. Exigent Circumstances
" id="heading_14278" data-id="heading_14278"><span data-paragraph-id="14278" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="14278" data-sentence-id="14278" class="ldml-sentence">B.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14278" data-sentence-id="14281" class="ldml-sentence">Exigent Circumstances</span></b>
</span></section><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth3" data-ordinal_start="1" data-ordinal_end="1" data-value="1. The Issue of Exigent Circumstances is Properly Before This Court" data-specifier="1" data-parsed="true" data-format="number" data-content-heading-label="1. The Issue of Exigent Circumstances is Properly Before This Court
" id="heading_14303" data-id="heading_14303"><span data-paragraph-id="14303" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="14303" data-sentence-id="14303" class="ldml-sentence">1.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14303" data-sentence-id="14306" class="ldml-sentence">The Issue of Exigent Circumstances is Properly Before <span class="ldml-entity">This Court</span></span></b>
</span></section><p data-paragraph-id="14371" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="14371" data-sentence-id="14379" class="ldml-sentence">The <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894725812" data-vids="894725812" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14379"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Payton</i></span></a></span> reasonable belief standard applies unless police entry is otherwise justified by exigent circumstances.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14371" data-sentence-id="14494" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894725812" data-vids="894725812" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_14539,sentence_14379"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Payton</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">445 U.S. at 583</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">100 S.Ct. 1371</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">recognizing that exigent circumstances may justify warrantless entry into a residence to make an arrest</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14379"><span class="ldml-refname">3 LaFave</span>, <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-cite">supra</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">§ 6.1<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(f)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(same)</span></span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14371" data-sentence-id="14679" class="ldml-sentence">Because exigent circumstances are an exception to <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894725812" data-vids="894725812" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14679"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Payton</i></span></a></span> standard</span>, the doctrine is so inextricably intertwined with <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894725812" data-vids="894725812" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14679"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Payton</i></span></a></span> analysis</span> for which <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> granted certiorari that the issue of exigent circumstances is properly before <span class="ldml-entity">this Court</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14371" data-sentence-id="14922" class="ldml-sentence">Even though <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> did not argue<a href="#note-fr1-4" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr1-4">4</a> nor did <span class="ldml-entity">the courts</span> below decide the issue, <span class="ldml-entity">the People</span> briefed the issue to <span class="ldml-entity">this Court</span> and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> find the doctrine of exigent circumstances determinative in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="15124" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="15124" data-sentence-id="15132" class="ldml-sentence">On appeal, <span class="ldml-entity">a party</span> may defend <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s judgment on any ground supported by the record, whether relied upon or even considered by <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15124" data-sentence-id="15287" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889117167" data-vids="889117167" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15132"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Eppens</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">979 P.2d 14, 22</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">1999</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15124" data-sentence-id="15334" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">This Court</span> has discretion to affirm <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s denial of Aarness's <span class="ldml-entity">motion to suppress</span> on different grounds than those relied upon by <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15124" data-sentence-id="15491" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See, e.g.</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887887122" data-vids="887887122" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_15547,sentence_15334"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. May</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">859 P.2d 879, 882</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">1993</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">affirming <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s suppression ruling on different grounds</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891772901" data-vids="891772901" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15334"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Martinez</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">32 P.3d 520, 525-26</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.App.</span><span class="ldml-date">2001</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(same)</span>, <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-cert">abrogated on other grounds by</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895330413" data-vids="895330413" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15334"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Johnson</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">121 P.3d 285</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.App.</span><span class="ldml-date">2005</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15124" data-sentence-id="15760" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> choose to exercise that discretion here.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15124" data-sentence-id="15804" class="ldml-sentence">While <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> recognize that <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span> generally has the burden to prove the presence of exigent circumstances, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889812804" data-vids="889812804" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15804"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Pate</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">71 P.3d at 1010</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> hold that exigent circumstances were present in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> as a matter of law based on the undisputed facts in the record.</span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth3" data-ordinal_start="2" data-ordinal_end="2" data-value="2. Exigent Circumstances Are Present in This Case" data-specifier="2" data-parsed="true" data-format="number" data-content-heading-label="2. Exigent Circumstances Are Present in This Case
" id="heading_16065" data-id="heading_16065"><span data-paragraph-id="16065" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="16065" data-sentence-id="16065" class="ldml-sentence">2.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16065" data-sentence-id="16068" class="ldml-sentence">Exigent Circumstances Are Present in <span class="ldml-entity">This Case</span></span></b>
</span></section><p data-paragraph-id="16115" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="16115" data-sentence-id="16123" class="ldml-sentence">A warrantless search or seizure is unreasonable and thereby unconstitutional unless justified by an established exception to the Warrant Clause of the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16123"><span class="ldml-cite">Fourth Amendment</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16115" data-sentence-id="16292" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889457358" data-vids="889457358" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16123"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Kluhsman</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">980 P.2d 529, 534</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">1999</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16115" data-sentence-id="16343" class="ldml-sentence">Exigent circumstances that necessitate immediate police action are one such exception.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16115" data-sentence-id="16430" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889457358" data-vids="889457358" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16343"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="16115" data-sentence-id="16434" class="ldml-sentence">To meet the requirements of the exigent circumstances doctrine, police must have probable cause to believe that the residence contains contraband or evidence of criminal activity, and exigent circumstances must justify a warrantless entry.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16115" data-sentence-id="16674" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889812804" data-vids="889812804" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16434"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Pate</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">71 P.3d at 1010</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16115" data-sentence-id="16697" class="ldml-sentence">Here, probable cause is not at issue because the police had an arrest warrant for Aarness which was based on probable cause.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16115" data-sentence-id="16822" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> turn to the issue of exigent circumstances.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="16875" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="16875" data-sentence-id="16883" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> have recognized three situations in which exigent circumstances justify a warrantless search: <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> the police are engaged in a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"hot pursuit"</span> of a fleeing suspect; <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> there is a risk of immediate destruction of evidence; or <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span> there is a colorable claim of emergency threatening the life or safety of another.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16875" data-sentence-id="17196" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889457358" data-vids="889457358" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16883"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Kluhsman</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">980 P.2d at 534</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16875" data-sentence-id="17223" class="ldml-sentence">The scope of the permissible intrusion is determined by the exigency justifying the initiation of the warrantless entry.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16875" data-sentence-id="17344" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889457358" data-vids="889457358" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17223"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="17348" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="17348" data-sentence-id="17356" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The People</span> argue two possible exigencies in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>—a risk of immediate destruction
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="150" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-val="1278" data-id="pagenumber_17442"></span>of evidence and the safety of officers and other occupants.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17348" data-sentence-id="17502" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> address each position in turn.</span>
</p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth4" data-format="title_case_lacks_specifier_italics" data-value="Risk of Immediate Destruction of Evidence" data-specifier="" data-parsed="true" data-content-heading-label="Risk of Immediate Destruction of Evidence
" id="heading_17536" data-id="heading_17536"><span data-paragraph-id="17536" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="17536" data-sentence-id="17536" class="ldml-sentence"><b class="ldml-bold">Risk of Immediate Destruction of Evidence</b></span>
</span></section><p data-paragraph-id="17578" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="17578" data-sentence-id="17586" class="ldml-sentence">To establish that there was a risk of immediate destruction of evidence, the police must have an articulable basis upon which to justify a reasonable belief that evidence is about to be destroyed.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17578" data-sentence-id="17783" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890995384" data-vids="890995384" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17586"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Mendez v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">986 P.2d 275, 282</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">1999</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17578" data-sentence-id="17832" class="ldml-sentence">The question is whether there is a substantial likelihood that contraband or evidence might be removed or destroyed before a warrant could be obtained.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17578" data-sentence-id="17984" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890995384" data-vids="890995384" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17832"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="17578" data-sentence-id="17988" class="ldml-sentence">The perceived danger must be real and immediate, and the mere fact that the evidence is of a type that can be easily destroyed does not, in itself, constitute an exigent circumstance.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17578" data-sentence-id="18172" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890995384" data-vids="890995384" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17988"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="18176" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="18176" data-sentence-id="18184" class="ldml-sentence">In <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890995384" data-vids="890995384" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18184"><span class="ldml-refname">Mendez</span></a></span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> held that there was a sufficient risk of immediate destruction of evidence to rise to the level of exigent circumstances where an officer investigating an outstanding arrest warrant <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"smelled the distinct odor of burning marijuana emanating from <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[the <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span>'s]</span> room."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="18176" data-sentence-id="18468" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890995384" data-vids="890995384" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18184"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="18176" data-sentence-id="18472" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> reasoned that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[t]</span>his odor indicated that evidence of a crime, that is, possession of marijuana, was in the process of being burned and thereby destroyed."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="18176" data-sentence-id="18631" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890995384" data-vids="890995384" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18472"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="18176" data-sentence-id="18635" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> thus concluded that these exigent circumstances justified entry into <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>'s motel room, such that the seizure of evidence found in plain view in the room was proper.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18176" data-sentence-id="18813" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890995384" data-vids="890995384" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18635"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 283</span></a></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="18825" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="18825" data-sentence-id="18833" class="ldml-sentence">In <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>, the police testified that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> smelled burned marijuana from their position at the front door after Aarness and the three other occupants were removed from the first floor of the apartment, and after <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> had learned that there may be another person sleeping upstairs.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18825" data-sentence-id="19116" class="ldml-sentence">At this point in time, the smell of burned marijuana did not indicate any risk that evidence was being destroyed because all of the occupants were already outside, except for one other person upstairs asleep.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18825" data-sentence-id="19325" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, <span class="ldml-entity">the facts of <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span></span> are clearly distinguishable from those in <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890995384" data-vids="890995384" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19325"><span class="ldml-refname">Mendez</span></a></span>,</i> and the smell of burned marijuana did not present exigent circumstances justifying police entry.</span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth4" data-format="title_case_lacks_specifier_italics" data-value="Safety of Officers and Other Occupants" data-specifier="" data-parsed="true" data-content-heading-label="Safety of Officers and Other Occupants
" id="heading_19501" data-id="heading_19501"><span data-paragraph-id="19501" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="19501" data-sentence-id="19501" class="ldml-sentence"><b class="ldml-bold">Safety of Officers and Other Occupants</b></span>
</span></section><p data-paragraph-id="19540" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="19540" data-sentence-id="19548" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The People</span> argue that the officers' warrantless entry into the apartment was justified to protect the safety of the officers and other occupants present at the time of Aarness's arrest.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19540" data-sentence-id="19734" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> agree.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19540" data-sentence-id="19744" class="ldml-sentence">The police had information that Aarness was armed and observed him reach into the seat of his recliner—possibly for a weapon—and Aarness refused to show his hands when ordered to do so.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19540" data-sentence-id="19930" class="ldml-sentence">Therefore, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> hold that the police were justified in making a warrantless entry to arrest Aarness.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="20029" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="20029" data-sentence-id="20037" class="ldml-sentence">This type of exigency does not fit neatly within the three categories <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have recognized in the past.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20029" data-sentence-id="20139" class="ldml-sentence">Although it is related to the colorable claim of emergency category, <span class="ldml-entity">the facts of <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span></span> do not present a colorable claim of emergency as <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have defined it.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20029" data-sentence-id="20300" class="ldml-sentence">To establish that there was a colorable claim of emergency threatening the life or safety of another, also known as the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"emergency aid exception,"</span> there must be a showing of immediate crisis inside the home and the probability that police assistance will be helpful in alleviating that crisis.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20029" data-sentence-id="20594" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895780981" data-vids="895780981" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20300"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Winpigler</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">8 P.3d 439, 446</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">1999</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20029" data-sentence-id="20644" class="ldml-sentence">The typical case is one in which the police are responding to an ongoing emergency inside a residence.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20029" data-sentence-id="20747" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">E.g.</span>, </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889457358" data-vids="889457358" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_20783,sentence_20644"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Kluhsman</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">980 P.2d at 532-33</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">finding</span> a colorable claim of emergency where <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>, covered in blood, told police that <span class="ldml-entity">people</span> had been chasing him all night and that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> had killed a couple of his pursuers, such that a warrantless search of <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>'s home for injured persons was justified</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20029" data-sentence-id="21056" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, there was no colorable claim of emergency here.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="21110" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="21110" data-sentence-id="21118" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> have not decided <span class="ldml-entity">a case</span> with facts substantially similar to those in <span class="ldml-entity">the case</span> at hand.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21110" data-sentence-id="21208" class="ldml-sentence">The <span class="ldml-entity">United States Supreme Court</span>, however, has held that officers may make a warrantless arrest or conduct a warrantless search if <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> believe that their own lives or the lives of others are at risk.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21110" data-sentence-id="21408" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892074110" data-vids="892074110" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_21490,sentence_21208"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Warden
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="150" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-val="1279" data-id="pagenumber_21419"></span>v. Hayden</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">387 U.S. 294, 298-99</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">87 S.Ct. 1642</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">18 L.Ed.2d 782</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1967</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">holding</span> the warrantless entry and search of a residence lawful where police had information that an armed robbery suspect was inside</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21110" data-sentence-id="21625" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> find this overarching principle helpful in guiding our analysis of whether the facts here present exigent circumstances.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="21749" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="21749" data-sentence-id="21757" class="ldml-sentence">In addition to the three specific categories of exigent circumstances <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have recognized, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have developed a set of factors to be considered when determining whether exigent circumstances are present.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21749" data-sentence-id="21959" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886491681" data-vids="886491681" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21757"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Miller</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">773 P.2d 1053, 1057</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">1989</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">citing</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893091473" data-vids="893091473" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21757"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Dorman v. United States</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">435 F.2d 385, 392-93</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">D.C.Cir.</span><span class="ldml-date">1970</span>)</span></a></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21749" data-sentence-id="22080" class="ldml-sentence">In <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886491681" data-vids="886491681" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22080"><span class="ldml-refname">Miller</span></a></span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> followed <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893091473" data-vids="893091473" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22080"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Dorman</i></span></a></span> factors</span> for determining whether exigent circumstances exist: <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> whether a grave offense is involved, particularly a crime of violence; <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> whether the suspect is reasonably believed to be armed; <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span> whether there exists a clear showing of probable cause to believe that the suspect committed the crime; <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span> whether there is a strong reason to believe the suspect is in the premises being entered; <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(5)</span> the likelihood that the suspect will escape if not swiftly apprehended; and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(6)</span> whether the entry is made peaceably.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21749" data-sentence-id="22633" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886491681" data-vids="886491681" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22080"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="21749" data-sentence-id="22637" class="ldml-sentence">Whether the entry is made at night is an additional consideration.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21749" data-sentence-id="22704" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886491681" data-vids="886491681" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22637"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="22708" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="22708" data-sentence-id="22716" class="ldml-sentence">Applying <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893091473" data-vids="893091473" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22716"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Dorman</i></span></a></span> factors</span>, other jurisdictions have found exigent circumstances in situations substantially similar to this one.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22708" data-sentence-id="22847" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See generally</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22716"><span class="ldml-refname">3 LaFave</span>, <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-cite">supra</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">§ 6.1<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(f)</span></span></a></span></span> nn. 198-206 <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(listing <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> finding exigent circumstances under <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893091473" data-vids="893091473" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Dorman</i></span></a></span> factors</span>)</span>.<a href="#note-fr1-5" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr1-5">5</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="22708" data-sentence-id="22971" class="ldml-sentence">For example, the First Circuit held that exigent circumstances justified entry into a third <span class="ldml-entity">party</span>'s residence to execute an arrest warrant where the arrestee had outstanding arrest warrants, had been seen by an informant earlier that day carrying a firearm, and tried to escape through the attic when <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> saw police outside the residence where <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> was staying.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22708" data-sentence-id="23330" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894987130" data-vids="894987130" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22971"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">United States v. Weems</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">322 F.3d 18, 20-21, 23</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">1st Cir.</span><span class="ldml-date">2003</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22708" data-sentence-id="23393" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court</span> reasoned that the police needed to act quickly in that situation, and that the arrestee had been given ample time to surrender before the police entered the residence to arrest him.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22708" data-sentence-id="23585" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894987130" data-vids="894987130" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23393"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 23</span></a></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="23596" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="23596" data-sentence-id="23604" class="ldml-sentence">Considering <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893091473" data-vids="893091473" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23604"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Dorman</i></span></a></span> factors</span> as approved of by <span class="ldml-entity">this Court in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886491681" data-vids="886491681" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23604"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Miller</i></span></a></span></span>, the particular circumstances present here were sufficient to conclude that there existed a substantial safety risk to both police and the occupants of the apartment that justified police entry to arrest Aarness.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="23887" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="23887" data-sentence-id="23895" class="ldml-sentence">Aarness argues that exigent circumstances do not excuse a warrantless entry when <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> arise as a result of a planned confrontation initiated by the police.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23887" data-sentence-id="24051" class="ldml-sentence">Essentially, Aarness asserts that the police created the exigency that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> used to justify their warrantless entry.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23887" data-sentence-id="24168" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal">See, e.g.</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890365098" data-vids="890365098" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_24244,sentence_24051"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">United States v. Anderson</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">154 F.3d 1225, 1234</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">10th Cir.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1998</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">holding</span> that exigent circumstances that the police knowingly created cannot justify their warrantless entry</span>)</span></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="24354" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="24354" data-sentence-id="24362" class="ldml-sentence">Here, the police had just learned from an anonymous tip that an armed parole violator with two outstanding warrants, one from <span class="ldml-entity">Mesa County</span> and the other for violating parole in California, was located in the apartment.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24354" data-sentence-id="24580" class="ldml-sentence">When the police knocked on the door with their weapons drawn and saw Aarness through the open doorway, <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> created the encounter with Aarness.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24354" data-sentence-id="24724" class="ldml-sentence">But it was Aarness's action and failure to respond to police commands to show his hands that created the circumstances that justified police entry, when combined with the police's knowledge that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> was an armed felon with outstanding arrest warrants.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24354" data-sentence-id="24975" class="ldml-sentence">When Aarness disobeyed multiple police demands to show his hands and reached his right hand into the seat of the recliner, the need for police action arose
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="150" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-val="1280" data-id="pagenumber_25131"></span>to protect themselves and the other occupants of the apartment.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24354" data-sentence-id="25195" class="ldml-sentence">It was reasonable for police to believe that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> was reaching for a weapon.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24354" data-sentence-id="25270" class="ldml-sentence">Aarness's conduct, and not that of the police, created the exigent circumstances that justified the warrantless entry.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24354" data-sentence-id="25389" class="ldml-sentence">Hence, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> police neither created nor manufactured the circumstances that justified their warrantless entry.</span>
</p></div></div></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-ordinal_start="3" data-ordinal_end="3" data-value="C. Plain View and Protective Sweep" data-specifier="C" data-parsed="true" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-content-heading-label="C. Plain View and Protective Sweep
" id="heading_25524" data-id="heading_25524"><span data-paragraph-id="25524" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="25524" data-sentence-id="25524" class="ldml-sentence">C.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25524" data-sentence-id="25527" class="ldml-sentence">Plain View and Protective Sweep</span></b>
</span></section><p data-paragraph-id="25559" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="25559" data-sentence-id="25567" class="ldml-sentence">Because the initial police entry into the apartment was lawful, the gun, drugs, and drug paraphernalia seen by police once inside were properly seized pursuant to the plain view doctrine.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25559" data-sentence-id="25755" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889457358" data-vids="889457358" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25567"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Kluhsman</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">980 P.2d at 534-35</span></a></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="25785" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="25785" data-sentence-id="25793" class="ldml-sentence">Alternatively, police were justified in conducting a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"protective sweep"</span> of the residence incident to Aarness's lawful arrest.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25785" data-sentence-id="25919" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892749706" data-vids="892749706" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25793"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Maryland v. Buie</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">494 U.S. 325, 334</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">110 S.Ct. 1093</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">108 L.Ed.2d 276</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1990</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25785" data-sentence-id="25996" class="ldml-sentence">Under this doctrine, police may conduct a protective sweep if <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> have an articulable suspicion that the area to be swept harbors a person posing a danger to those present at the arrest scene.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25785" data-sentence-id="26190" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892749706" data-vids="892749706" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25996"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="25785" data-sentence-id="26194" class="ldml-sentence">In <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>, the police had an articulable suspicion that another occupant remained inside the house because <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> were told someone was upstairs.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25785" data-sentence-id="26341" class="ldml-sentence">Police also had reason to believe that there may have been weapons in the apartment because <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> had found a loaded handgun clip on Aarness's person.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25785" data-sentence-id="26491" class="ldml-sentence">The gun, drugs, and drug paraphernalia the police encountered during their protective sweep for the person upstairs were therefore properly seized.</span>
</p></div></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-ordinal_start="4" data-parsed="true" data-ordinal_end="4" data-value="IV. Conclusion" data-specifier="IV" data-types="conclusion" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-content-heading-label="IV. Conclusion
" data-confidences="very_high" id="heading_26639" data-id="heading_26639"><span data-paragraph-id="26639" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="26639" data-sentence-id="26639" class="ldml-sentence">IV.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26639" data-sentence-id="26643" class="ldml-sentence">Conclusion</span></b>
</span></section><p data-paragraph-id="26654" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="26654" data-sentence-id="26662" class="ldml-sentence">While <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> agree with <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span>' application of the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894725812" data-vids="894725812" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26662"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Payton</i></span></a></span> two-pronged reasonable belief standard, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> hold that exigent circumstances justified the police entry into the apartment to arrest Aarness even though <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894725812" data-vids="894725812" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26662"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Payton</i></span></a></span> standard</span> was not met.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26654" data-sentence-id="26914" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> therefore reverse <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span>' judgment and remand <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> to <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> to be returned to <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> to reinstate Aarness's convictions.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="27081" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="27081" data-sentence-id="27089" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Justice <span class="ldml-entity">EID</span></span> does not participate.</span>
</p></div></div><div class="ldml-notes content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Footnotes"><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="27123" class="ldml-paragraph "><a href="#note-ref-fr1-1" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr1-1">1.</a> <span data-paragraph-id="27123" data-sentence-id="27124" class="ldml-sentence">Although <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> stated the police were executing a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"search"</span> warrant, <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> agree that this was a misstatement and <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> intended to say <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"arrest"</span> warrant.</span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="27297" class="ldml-paragraph "><a href="#note-ref-fr1-2" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr1-2">2.</a> <span data-paragraph-id="27297" data-sentence-id="27298" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> granted certiorari on the following question:</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="27347" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="27347" data-sentence-id="27355" class="ldml-sentence">Whether <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> erred in concluding that the police officers' entry into <span class="ldml-entity">the respondent</span>'s home was unlawful under <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894725812" data-vids="894725812" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27355"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Payton v. New York</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">445 U.S. 573</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">100 S.Ct. 1371</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">63 L.Ed.2d 639</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1980</span>)</span></a></span>.</span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="27555" class="ldml-paragraph "><a href="#note-ref-fr1-3" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr1-3">3.</a> <span data-paragraph-id="27555" data-sentence-id="27556" class="ldml-sentence">Two <span class="ldml-entity">federal circuit courts</span> have equated <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"reason to believe"</span> with probable cause.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="27555" data-sentence-id="27637" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894686720" data-vids="894686720" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27556"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">United States v. Gorman</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">314 F.3d 1105, 1114-15</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">9th Cir.</span><span class="ldml-date">2002</span>)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885302294" data-vids="885302294" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27556"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">United States v. Clifford</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">664 F.2d 1090, 1092-93</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">8th Cir.</span><span class="ldml-date">1981</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="27555" data-sentence-id="27771" class="ldml-sentence">Additionally, the Third Circuit declined to decide whether probable cause is required, holding instead that probable cause was present in <span class="ldml-entity">that case</span> such that it <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"need not determine whether a possibly lower standard of reasonable belief should be applied here."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="27555" data-sentence-id="28032" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893188243" data-vids="893188243" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27771"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">United States v. Veal</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">453 F.3d 164, 167 n. 3</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">3d Cir.</span><span class="ldml-date">2006</span>)</span></a></span>.</span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="28093" class="ldml-paragraph "><a href="#note-ref-fr1-4" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr1-4">4.</a> <span data-paragraph-id="28093" data-sentence-id="28094" class="ldml-sentence">Although their brief to <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> did not address the issue, in their <span class="ldml-entity">petition for rehearing</span> <span class="ldml-entity">the People</span> argued that exigent circumstances were present.</span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="28257" class="ldml-paragraph "><a href="#note-ref-fr1-5" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr1-5">5.</a> <span data-paragraph-id="28257" data-sentence-id="28258" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">E.g.</span>, </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893221270" data-vids="893221270" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_28323,sentence_22847"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">United States v. Wicks</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">995 F.2d 964, 971</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">10th Cir.</span><span class="ldml-date">1993</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">holding</span> that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry of a drug trafficking suspect's motel room where the police had information that the suspect was sometimes armed and that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> might be planning to flee soon</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">cf.</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894051088" data-vids="894051088" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_28604,sentence_22847"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Loria v. Gorman</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">306 F.3d 1271, 1285</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">2d Cir.</span><span class="ldml-date">2002</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">holding</span> that exigent circumstances were not present where there was no indication that there were weapons at the scene of the arrest</span>)</span></span>.</span></p>
</div></div>
</div></div>
</div>
</div>