The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado v. Aaron PELUSO

<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2024-06-06">
<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/901256376" data-vids="901256376" 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">500 P.3d 1090</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Plaintiff</span>-<span class="ldml-role">Appellant</span></span>,</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold">v.</b><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Aaron PELUSO</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Defendant</span>-<span class="ldml-role">Appellee</span></span>.</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold">Supreme Court <span class="ldml-cite">Case No. 20SA316</span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>.</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">March 8, 2021</b></span></p></div><div class="ldml-counsel header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Counsel"><p data-paragraph-id="175" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="175" data-sentence-id="175" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Plaintiff</span></span>-<span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Appellant</span></span>: <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Daniel H. May</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">District Attorney</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Fourth Judicial District</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">David Illingworth</span></span>, <span class="ldml-role">Deputy <span class="ldml-entity">District Attorney</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Doyle Baker</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Senior Deputy District Attorney</span>, Colorado Springs, Colorado</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="387" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="387" data-sentence-id="387" class="ldml-sentence">Attorney for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Defendant</span></span>-<span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Appellee</span></span>: <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Earl W. Cook, Jr.</span></span>, Colorado Springs, Colorado</span></p></div><h2 class="ldml-opinionheading"><span data-paragraph-id="465" class="ldml-paragraph "><span class="ldml-judgepanel"><span data-paragraph-id="465" data-sentence-id="465" class="ldml-sentence">En Banc</span></span></span></h2><div class="ldml-opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="472" class="ldml-paragraph "><span class="ldml-opinionauthor content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion (HART)"><span data-paragraph-id="472" data-sentence-id="472" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">HART</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><span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="1092" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-vol="500" data-rep="P.3d" data-id="pagenumber_520"></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="520" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="520" data-sentence-id="521" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_521"><span class="ldml-cite">¶1</span></a></span> In this interlocutory appeal, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> review <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s order suppressing evidence of drugs discovered during a warrantless search of <span class="ldml-entity">Aaron Peluso</span>'s residence.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="520" data-sentence-id="686" class="ldml-sentence">Because the officers acted on a reasonable belief that Peluso's girlfriend had authority to consent to the search, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> erred in suppressing the evidence.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="520" data-sentence-id="869" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> therefore reverse <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s suppression order and remand for further proceedings.</span></p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="I. Facts and Procedural History" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-confidences="very_high" data-value="I. Facts and Procedural History" data-types="background" data-specifier="I" data-ordinal_end="1" data-parsed="true" id="heading_961" data-ordinal_start="1" data-id="heading_961"><span data-paragraph-id="961" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="961" data-sentence-id="961" class="ldml-sentence">I.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="961" data-sentence-id="964" class="ldml-sentence">Facts and Procedural History</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="992" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="992" data-sentence-id="992" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_992"><span class="ldml-cite">¶2</span></a></span> On <span class="ldml-entity">March 23, 2019</span>, several parole officers approached a home that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> believed was the residence of <span class="ldml-entity">Susan Damico</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="992" data-sentence-id="1110" class="ldml-sentence">Damico was a parolee whose parole agreement allowed officers to search <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"her person, residence, and/or vehicle"</span> without a warrant as a condition of parole.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="992" data-sentence-id="1265" class="ldml-sentence">About a month before the search, Damico informed her parole officer, <span class="ldml-entity">Brook Hathaway</span>, that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> would be moving from the apartment <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> lived in at that time.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="992" data-sentence-id="1421" class="ldml-sentence">On <span class="ldml-entity">March 9, 2019</span>, Damico updated C-WISE, a call center and database used to monitor and communicate with parolees, to indicate that her new residence was Peluso's home.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="1589" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="1589" data-sentence-id="1589" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1589"><span class="ldml-cite">¶3</span></a></span> When the officers arrived at the home, <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> found Damico in the front yard getting into her car.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1589" data-sentence-id="1689" class="ldml-sentence">The officers identified themselves, informed Damico that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> were conducting a parole visit, obtained a house key from her, and asked whether there was anyone inside the home.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1589" data-sentence-id="1866" class="ldml-sentence">Damico told the officers that Peluso was inside in bed.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1589" data-sentence-id="1922" class="ldml-sentence">While the other officers entered the home, Hathaway remained outside with Damico for several minutes.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1589" data-sentence-id="2024" class="ldml-sentence">Damico did not say at any point during her interactions with the officers that the home <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> were searching was not her legal residence.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="2160" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="2160" data-sentence-id="2160" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2160"><span class="ldml-cite">¶4</span></a></span> The officers who first entered the home found Peluso in bed and informed him of the purpose of their visit.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2160" data-sentence-id="2271" class="ldml-sentence">After Peluso got dressed and out of bed, officers searched the room and found methamphetamine, THC, glass pipes, rolling papers, and a digital scale.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2160" data-sentence-id="2421" class="ldml-sentence">Officers arrested Peluso and then searched his wallet, which contained additional methamphetamine.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2160" data-sentence-id="2520" class="ldml-sentence">During the drive to the <span class="ldml-entity">El Paso County Jail</span>, Peluso told officers that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> had been using methamphetamine.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="2625" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="2625" data-sentence-id="2625" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2625"><span class="ldml-cite">¶5</span></a></span> Peluso was subsequently charged with possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2625" data-sentence-id="2740" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">He</span> filed a <span class="ldml-entity">motion to suppress both the evidence</span> recovered from his home and the statements <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> made after his arrest, arguing that the warrantless search of his home violated his <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2740"><span class="ldml-cite">Fourth Amendment</span></a></span> rights</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="2942" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="2942" data-sentence-id="2942" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2942"><span class="ldml-cite">¶6</span></a></span> At the suppression hearing, Hathaway explained that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> believed Damico was a co-habitant of Peluso's home and that officers therefore had authority to search the home pursuant to Damico's parole agreement for three reasons.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2942" data-sentence-id="3169" class="ldml-sentence">First, <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> had met Peluso with Damico and knew <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> were romantically involved.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2942" data-sentence-id="3248" class="ldml-sentence">Second, Damico had told him that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> was moving and had updated her address on C-WISE.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2942" data-sentence-id="3335" class="ldml-sentence">Finally, Damico gave no indication at the time of the search that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> was not living at the home.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="3432" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="3432" data-sentence-id="3432" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3432"><span class="ldml-cite">¶7</span></a></span> Damico testified at the hearing that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> did not formally move into Peluso's residence until the end of April—several weeks after the search.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3432" data-sentence-id="3577" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">She</span> acknowledged, however, that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> stayed with Peluso from time to time <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(including the day of the search)</span>, had a key to the residence, and kept some of her belongings there.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="3751" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="3751" data-sentence-id="3751" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3751"><span class="ldml-cite">¶8</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The trial court</span> issued an oral ruling granting the <span class="ldml-entity">motion to suppress</span>, concluding that Damico did not actually live at Peluso's home at the time of the search and that Hathaway could have done more to verify her address, rather than accepting her update in C-WISE as dispositive.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3751" data-sentence-id="4034" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court</span> further found that there was insufficient evidence to determine whether Peluso might have objected to the search once the officers entered his home.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3751" data-sentence-id="4193" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The People</span> moved for reconsideration, arguing that <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> incorrectly analyzed Damico's actual, not apparent, authority to consent to the search.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3751" data-sentence-id="4342" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The trial court</span> denied <span class="ldml-entity">the People</span>'s motion, and <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="1093" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-vol="500" data-rep="P.3d" data-id="pagenumber_4390"></span> <span class="ldml-entity">the People</span> filed this interlocutory appeal pursuant to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 4.1</span></a></span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="II. Analysis" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-confidences="very_high" data-value="II. Analysis" data-types="analysis" data-specifier="II" data-ordinal_end="2" data-parsed="true" id="heading_4457" data-ordinal_start="2" data-id="heading_4457"><span data-paragraph-id="4457" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="4457" data-sentence-id="4457" class="ldml-sentence">II.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4457" data-sentence-id="4461" class="ldml-sentence">Analysis</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="4469" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="4469" data-sentence-id="4469" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4469"><span class="ldml-cite">¶9</span></a></span> In their interlocutory appeal, <span class="ldml-entity">the People</span> ask that <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> reverse <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s suppression of the drugs, paraphernalia, and incriminating statements.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4469" data-sentence-id="4623" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">They</span> argue that the officers reasonably believed that Peluso's home was Damico's new residence, and therefore <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> had apparent authority to allow the search.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4469" data-sentence-id="4781" class="ldml-sentence">Further, <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> note that there is no evidence that Peluso objected to the search and that, in any event, once the search had lawfully commenced, his objection could not render it unlawful.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4469" data-sentence-id="4969" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> agree and reverse <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s suppression order.</span></p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-content-heading-label="A. Standard of Review" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-confidences="very_high" data-value="A. Standard of Review" data-types="standardofreview" data-specifier="A" data-ordinal_end="1" data-parsed="true" id="heading_5026" data-ordinal_start="1" data-id="heading_5026"><span data-paragraph-id="5026" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="5026" data-sentence-id="5026" class="ldml-sentence">A.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5026" data-sentence-id="5029" class="ldml-sentence">Standard of Review</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="5047" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="5047" data-sentence-id="5048" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5048"><span class="ldml-cite">¶10</span></a></span> Review of <span class="ldml-entity">a trial court</span>'s suppression order presents <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"a mixed question of law and fact."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="5047" data-sentence-id="5141" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5048" data-refglobal="case:peoplevallen,2019co88"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Allen</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2019 CO 88</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5048"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 13</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894120673" data-vids="894120673" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">450 P.3d 724, 728</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:peoplevthrelkel,2019co18"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Threlkel</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2019 CO 18</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 15</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895544973" data-vids="895544973" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">438 P.3d 722, 727</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5047" data-sentence-id="5262" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> defer to <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s findings of fact <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"if <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> are supported by competent evidence in the record."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="5047" data-sentence-id="5370" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894120673" data-vids="894120673" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5262"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="5047" data-sentence-id="5374" class="ldml-sentence">However, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> review <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s legal conclusions de novo.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5047" data-sentence-id="5438" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894120673" data-vids="894120673" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5374"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-ordinal_end="2" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-value="B. Law" data-content-heading-label="B. Law" data-specifier="B" data-parsed="true" id="heading_5441" data-ordinal_start="2" data-id="heading_5441"><span data-paragraph-id="5441" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="5441" data-sentence-id="5441" class="ldml-sentence">B.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5441" data-sentence-id="5444" class="ldml-sentence">Law</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="5447" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="5447" data-sentence-id="5448" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5448"><span class="ldml-cite">¶11</span></a></span> The <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5448"><span class="ldml-cite">Fourth Amendment</span></a></span> prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5447" data-sentence-id="5519" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5448"><span class="ldml-cite">U.S. Const. amend. IV</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5447" data-sentence-id="5542" class="ldml-sentence">Although a warrant is generally required to search a home, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"certain categories of permissible warrantless searches have long been recognized."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="5447" data-sentence-id="5685" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886359873" data-vids="886359873" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5542"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Fernandez v. California</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">571 U.S. 292, 298</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">134 S.Ct. 1126</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">188 L.Ed.2d 25</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2014</span>)</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="5767" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="5767" data-sentence-id="5768" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5768"><span class="ldml-cite">¶12</span></a></span> One such category is the search of a parolee.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5767" data-sentence-id="5818" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891751563" data-vids="891751563" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5768"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Samson v. California</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">547 U.S. 843, 846</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">126 S.Ct. 2193</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">165 L.Ed.2d 250</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2006</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893416282" data-vids="893416282" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5768"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. McCullough</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">6 P.3d 774, 779</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2000</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5767" data-sentence-id="5952" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Conditional release on parole operates as an extension of a person's confinement intended to facilitate reintegration with society, as opposed to an unconditional release accompanied by full restoration of the person's civil rights."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="5767" data-sentence-id="6187" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5952" data-refglobal="case:inthematterofmirandano12sa112289p3d957,2012co69nov27,2012"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">In re Miranda</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2012 CO 69</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5952"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 13</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inthematterofmirandano12sa112289p3d957,2012co69nov27,2012"><span class="ldml-cite">289 P.3d 957, 961</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5767" data-sentence-id="6239" class="ldml-sentence">As such, Colorado law allows for the unannounced, warrantless search of a parolee's <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"person, residence, or vehicle."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="5767" data-sentence-id="6356" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6239"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 17-2-201 <span class="ldml-headnoteanchor"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(5)</span></span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(f)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(I)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(D)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="6395" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="6395" data-sentence-id="6396" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6396"><span class="ldml-cite">¶13</span></a></span> Consent searches are also constitutionally permissible without a warrant.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6395" data-sentence-id="6474" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886359873" data-vids="886359873" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6396"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Fernandez</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">571 U.S. at 298</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">134 S.Ct. 1126</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6395" data-sentence-id="6518" class="ldml-sentence">Where a residence is jointly occupied by more than one person, the consent of one occupant with common authority over the premises is sufficient to permit a warrantless search.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6395" data-sentence-id="6695" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891687686" data-vids="891687686" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6518"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">United States v. Matlock</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">415 U.S. 164, 171</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">94 S.Ct. 988</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">39 L.Ed.2d 242</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1974</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6395" data-sentence-id="6778" class="ldml-sentence">Cohabitants are considered to have common authority where there is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="6395" data-sentence-id="6945" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891687686" data-vids="891687686" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6778"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 171 n.7</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">94 S.Ct. 988</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="6974" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="6974" data-sentence-id="6975" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6975"><span class="ldml-cite">¶14 A</span></a></span> warrantless search is also valid based upon the consent of a third <span class="ldml-entity">party</span> whom officers, at the time of the entry, reasonably believe to possess common authority over the premises, even if the person in fact does not.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6974" data-sentence-id="7198" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885033322" data-vids="885033322" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6975"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Illinois v. Rodriguez</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">497 U.S. 177, 179, 186</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">110 S.Ct. 2793</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">111 L.Ed.2d 148</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1990</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6974" data-sentence-id="7285" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-quotation quote">"An apparent authority analysis begins by conceding that the consent obtained by police is legally invalid because the consenting third <span class="ldml-entity">party</span> lacks sufficient authority over the property to consent to a search."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="6974" data-sentence-id="7497" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889910604" data-vids="889910604" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7285"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Petersen v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">939 P.2d 824, 830</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1997</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6974" data-sentence-id="7549" class="ldml-sentence">Searches under this doctrine are nonetheless valid where officers acting in good faith make reasonable mistakes of fact.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6974" data-sentence-id="7670" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889910604" data-vids="889910604" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7549"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 830-31</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6974" data-sentence-id="7685" class="ldml-sentence">The test for reasonableness is an objective one: <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the facts available to the officer at the moment"</span> must be such that a person <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-quotation quote">'of reasonable caution'</span> ... <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[would believe]</span> that the consenting <span class="ldml-entity">party</span> had authority over the premises<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[.]</span>"</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="6974" data-sentence-id="7919" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885033322" data-vids="885033322" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7685"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Rodriguez</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">497 U.S. at 188</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">110 S.Ct. 2793</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892551293" data-vids="892551293" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7685"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Terry v. Ohio</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">392 U.S. 1, 21-22</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">88 S.Ct. 1868</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">20 L.Ed.2d 889</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1968</span>)</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6974" data-sentence-id="8045" class="ldml-sentence">If officers reasonably believe that a third <span class="ldml-entity">party</span> has common authority over a residence, that third <span class="ldml-entity">party</span>'s apparent authority suffices to validate a warrantless search.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6974" data-sentence-id="8215" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8045" data-refglobal="case:williamsvpeople,2019co101"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Williams v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2019 CO 108</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8045"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 21</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894928565" data-vids="894928565" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">455 P.3d 347, 351</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">citing</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885033322" data-vids="885033322" class="ldml-reference"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Rodriguez</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">497 U.S. at 183-84, 189</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">110 S.Ct. 2793</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="8333" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="8333" data-sentence-id="8334" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8334"><span class="ldml-cite">¶15</span></a></span> Although consent by one resident of a jointly occupied premises is generally sufficient to justify a warrantless search, <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="1094" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-vol="500" data-rep="P.3d" data-id="pagenumber_8459"></span> a narrow exception exists where a physically present inhabitant expressly refuses consent to the police search — that express refusal is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"dispositive as to him, regardless of the consent of a fellow occupant."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="8333" data-sentence-id="8670" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886133324" data-vids="886133324" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8334"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Georgia v. Randolph</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">547 U.S. 103, 122-23</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">126 S.Ct. 1515</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">164 L.Ed.2d 208</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2006</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8333" data-sentence-id="8753" class="ldml-sentence">However, this exception applies only if the objecting occupant is both physically present and objects at the time the consenting occupant authorizes the search.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8333" data-sentence-id="8914" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8753" data-refglobal="case:williamsvpeople,2019co101"><span class="ldml-refname">Williams</span></a></span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8753"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 35</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894928565" data-vids="894928565" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">455 P.3d at 354</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">citing</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886359873" data-vids="886359873" class="ldml-reference"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Fernandez</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">571 U.S. at 306</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">134 S.Ct. 1126</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-ordinal_end="3" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-value="C. Application" data-content-heading-label="C. Application" data-specifier="C" data-parsed="true" id="heading_8999" data-ordinal_start="3" data-id="heading_8999"><span data-paragraph-id="8999" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="8999" data-sentence-id="8999" class="ldml-sentence">C.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8999" data-sentence-id="9002" class="ldml-sentence">Application</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="9013" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="9013" data-sentence-id="9014" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9014"><span class="ldml-cite">¶16</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The parties</span> do not dispute that Damico's parole agreement gave her parole officer permission to search her residence.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9013" data-sentence-id="9136" class="ldml-sentence">Nor do <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> dispute that Damico was not actually living at Peluso's home at the time of the search.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9013" data-sentence-id="9236" class="ldml-sentence">The central disputed question is whether the parole officers reasonably believed that Damico was living in the home such that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> could conduct a search pursuant to the terms of her parole agreement.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="9436" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="9436" data-sentence-id="9436" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9436"><span class="ldml-cite">¶17</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The trial court</span> concluded that there was insufficient evidence that parole officers reasonably believed Damico had authority to consent to a search of Peluso's residence.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9436" data-sentence-id="9611" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> disagree.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9436" data-sentence-id="9624" class="ldml-sentence">The undisputed facts available to parole officers at the moment <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> arrived at Peluso's residence warranted their belief that Damico possessed common authority over the premises, such that her apparent authority sufficed to validate the warrantless search.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="9881" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="9881" data-sentence-id="9881" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9881"><span class="ldml-cite">¶18</span></a></span> On <span class="ldml-entity">March 23, 2019</span>, when officers encountered Damico in front of Peluso's residence, <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> knew the following undisputed facts:</span></p><div class="ldml-embeddeddocument"><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_10010" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="10010" class="ldml-sentence">• Damico was a parolee subject to warrantless searches of her residence;</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_10082" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="10082" class="ldml-sentence">• Damico and Peluso were in a romantic relationship;</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_10134" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="10134" class="ldml-sentence">• during a search of her apartment on <span class="ldml-entity">February 19, 2019</span>, Damico informed her parole officer of an impending move;</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_10247" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="10247" class="ldml-sentence">• on <span class="ldml-entity">March 9, 2019</span>, Damico updated her address to Peluso's address on C-WISE;</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_10324" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="10324" class="ldml-sentence">• Damico was in possession of a key to the residence; and</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_10381" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="10381" class="ldml-sentence">• Damico neither objected to the search nor clarified that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> did not yet live with Peluso.</span></blockquote></div><p data-paragraph-id="10473" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="10473" data-sentence-id="10473" class="ldml-sentence">On <span class="ldml-entity">these facts</span>, the officers reasonably believed that Damico resided with Peluso at the time of the search.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10473" data-sentence-id="10581" class="ldml-sentence">This reasonable belief was further confirmed when, in response to an officer's question about whether there were others inside the house, Damico responded that Peluso was in bed, indicating her use of and access to the property.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="10809" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="10809" data-sentence-id="10809" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10809"><span class="ldml-cite">¶19</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The trial court</span>'s suppression order also rested on what <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> described as a lack of evidence as to whether Peluso might have objected to the search.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10809" data-sentence-id="10967" class="ldml-sentence">But <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s focus on Peluso's hypothetical objection was inappropriate for two reasons.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10809" data-sentence-id="11065" class="ldml-sentence">First, Peluso has not argued, either at the hearing or here, that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> objected to the search.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10809" data-sentence-id="11158" class="ldml-sentence">Rather, Peluso argues that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> was not given the opportunity to object.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10809" data-sentence-id="11229" class="ldml-sentence">But once the officers reasonably believed <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> were searching Damico's residence pursuant to the terms of her parole agreement, there was no reason to give Peluso an opportunity to object.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10809" data-sentence-id="11418" class="ldml-sentence">Second, even if Peluso had objected to the search at the time officers entered his bedroom, it would have been too late to vitiate Damico's previously given consent.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10809" data-sentence-id="11584" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11418" data-refglobal="case:williamsvpeople,2019co101"><span class="ldml-refname">Williams</span></a></span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11418"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 3</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894928565" data-vids="894928565" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">455 P.3d at 348</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10809" data-sentence-id="11621" class="ldml-sentence">Because Peluso was asleep in his bedroom and concedes that the search had already commenced when officers first made contact with him, <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"los<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[t]</span> out"</span> on the opportunity to make an effective objection.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10809" data-sentence-id="11823" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886133324" data-vids="886133324" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11621"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Randolph</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">547 U.S. at 121</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">126 S.Ct. 1515</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> </i> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11621" data-refglobal="case:williamsvpeople,2019co101"><span class="ldml-refname">Williams</span></a></span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11621"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 42</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894928565" data-vids="894928565" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">455 P.3d at 355</span></a></span>.</span></p></div></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="III. Conclusion" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-confidences="very_high" data-value="III. Conclusion" data-types="conclusion" data-specifier="III" data-ordinal_end="3" data-parsed="true" id="heading_11909" data-ordinal_start="3" data-id="heading_11909"><span data-paragraph-id="11909" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="11909" data-sentence-id="11909" class="ldml-sentence">III.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11909" data-sentence-id="11914" class="ldml-sentence">Conclusion</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="11924" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="11924" data-sentence-id="11924" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11924"><span class="ldml-cite">¶20</span></a></span> Because parole officers reasonably believed Damico had authority to consent to a search of Peluso's residence, her apparent authority was sufficient to validate the warrantless search, and Peluso's <span class="ldml-entity">motion to suppress</span> should have been denied.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11924" data-sentence-id="12170" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> reverse <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s suppression order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.</span></p></div></div></div></div>
</div>
</div>