Legal Opinion

People v. Fuerst

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided May 20, 2013No. Supreme Court Case No. 13SA39PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Rice

[ 1 In this suppression ease, we hold that Respondent Kim Maurice Fuerst's decision to silently remain behind a locked door inside his home did not constitute an express refusal of consent to a police search. Therefore, Fuerst's wife's free and voluntary consent to the search of the couple's home was valid as to Fuerst. We accordingly reverse the order of the trial court granting Fuerst's motion to suppress evidence obtained during the search.

I. Facts and Procedural History

12 Police arrived at the Fuerst residence on September 10, 2011, in response to a possible protection order violation.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Payton v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. United States v. MatlockSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. Georgia v. RandolphSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
  4. People v. SyrieSupreme Court of Colorado · 2004
  5. People v. WinpiglerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1999

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. C & C Investments, LP v. Martha L. HummelColorado Court of Appeals · 2022
  2. People v. StockSupreme Court of Colorado · 2017
  3. People v. StockSupreme Court of Colorado · 2017

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API