Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
People v. Crouse
Colorado Court of Appeals
Decided December 19, 2013No. Court of Appeals No. 12CA2298Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
JUDGE BERNARD concurring in part and dissenting in part.
¶ 49 I concur with the majority's conclusion that this appeal is not moot. I disagree with the majority's holding that the federal Controlled Substances Act (the CSA) does not preempt Colo. Const. art. XVIII, § 14 (2)(e). I therefore respectfully dissent from section III of the majority's opinion.
I. Section 885(d) Provides Immunity Only When Police Officers Are Lawfully Engaged in Enforcing Drug Laws
A. What Is the Right Question to Ask to Decide This Case?
¶ 50 21 U.S.C. § 885(d) states that "no civil or criminal liability shall be…
2Cases cited49 opinions
- Ex Parte YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Hines v. DavidowitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. PaulSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.