Legal Opinion
People v. Hauseman
Supreme Court of Colorado
Decided June 30, 1995No. 94SA383PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Kirshbaum
The People filed this interlocutory appeal pursuant to C.A.R. 4.1 seeking review of the trial court’s order granting a motion filed by the defendant, Paul J. Hauseman, to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle by law enforcement officers. Because we conclude that the trial court applied an erroneous legal standard, we reverse the order and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
I
On December 16, 1993, a North Metro Drug Task Force (“NMDTF”) detective received information irom a confidential informant that Hauseman was then at work at a business establishment located on…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Coolidge v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Michigan v. LongSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- South Dakota v. OppermanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Horton v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Cady v. DombrowskiSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- People v. HaleySupreme Court of Colorado · 2001
- State v. KealeyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1995
- People v. LitchfieldSupreme Court of Colorado · 1996
- People v. VaughnSupreme Court of Colorado · 2014
- People v. PatnodeColorado Court of Appeals · 2005
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.