-
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO Ralph L. Carr Judicial Center 2
East 14th Avenue Denver, CO 80203
▲ COURT USE ONLY ▲
On Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals Case No.
10CA1805
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO Petitioner, v. $11,200.00
U.S. CURRENCY and BRADLEY EDWARD STRAND. Respondent.
MARK G. WALTA, #30990 Walta LLC 1544 Race Street Denver, CO
80206 (303) 953-5999 (Telephone) (303) 321-7781 (Fax)
[email protected] (Email)
Case Number: 11SC813
ANSWER BRIEF
mailto:[email protected]
-
ii
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO Ralph L. Carr Judicial Center 2
East 14th Avenue Denver, CO 80203
Name of Lower Court(s): Colorado Court of Appeals
Case Number(s): 10CA1805
Petitioner: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO v. Respondents:
$11,200.00 U.S CURRENCY, BRADLEY EDWARD STRAND, ET AL.
∆ COURT USE ONLY ∆
Attorney: MARK G. WALTA, #30990 Walta LLC 1544 Race Street
Denver, CO 80206 (303) 953-5999 (Telephone) (303) 321-7781 (Fax)
[email protected] (Email)
Case Number: 11SC813
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I hereby certify that this brief complies with all requirements
of C.A.R. 28 and C.A.R. 32 , including all formatting requirements
set forth in these rules. Specifically, the undersigned certifies
that: The brief complies with C.A.R. 28(g) .
Choose one:
√ It contains 9,497 words. The brief complies with C.A.R. 28(k)
.
√ For the party responding to the issue: It contains, under a
separate heading, a statement of whether such party agrees with the
opponent’s statements concerning the standard of review and
preservation for appeal, and if not, why not.
s/ Mark G. Walta, #30990
Signature of attorney
mailto:[email protected]://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005372&DocName=COSTACTR28&wbtoolsId=COSTACTR28&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005372&DocName=COSTACTR28&wbtoolsId=COSTACTR28&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005372&DocName=COSTACTR32&wbtoolsId=COSTACTR32&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005372&DocName=COSTACTR32&wbtoolsId=COSTACTR32&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005372&DocName=COSTACTR28&wbtoolsId=COSTACTR28&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005372&DocName=COSTACTR28&wbtoolsId=COSTACTR28&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005372&DocName=COSTACTR28&wbtoolsId=COSTACTR28&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005372&DocName=COSTACTR28&wbtoolsId=COSTACTR28&HistoryType=C
-
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ISSUES ANNOUNCED BY THE
COURT.......................................................... 1
COMBINED STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND THE FACTS .................. 2
1. The Parallel Criminal Action
............................................................... 2
2. The Civil Forfeiture Action
................................................................. 3
3. The Direct Appeal of the Conviction and Resulting Dismissal
..... 6 4. The Motion for Relief from Judgment
.............................................. 7 5. The Court of
Appeals’ Opinion
......................................................... 8 SUMMARY
OF THE ARGUMENT
......................................................................
9 ARGUMENT
I. THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT LOSE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IN
THIS IN REM FORFEITURE PROCEEDING WHEN IT DISTRIBUTED THE PERSONAL
PROPERTY, $11,200, PURSUANT TO ITS UNAPPEALED FINAL ORDER.
………...……………
...............................................................................................
11 1. Standard of Review……….
.............................................................. 11
2. The Merits……………….
...............................................................
11
A. Any Alleged Defect In The Trial Court’s Jurisdiction
Implicates Questions Of Personal – Not Subject Matter –
Jurisdiction.………………………………………………...…..11
B. Defects In Personal Jurisdiction Are Waivable, And The
District
Attorney Has Waived Its Jurisdictional Arguments By Failing To
Timely Raise Them Below……………………………………..14
C. Even If The Prosecution’s Jurisdictional Complaints Are
Properly
Before The Court, They Fail As A Matter Of
Law.………………………………………….………………...16
-
ii
D. The Fact That Mr. Strand Did Not Appeal From, And Seek A Stay
Of, The Forfeiture Order Is Of No Consequence, As Defendant: (1)
Was Not Required To Take Such Action; And, (2) In Any Event, Would
Have Been Estopped From Challenging The Legality Of The Seizure Of
The Subject Currency.…..........……………...…………………....………….19
II. SECTION 16-13-307(1.6), C.R.S . (2011), PROVIDES AFFIRMATIVE
RELIEF FROM AN UNAPPEALED FINAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE WHEN A
CLAIMANT’S CRIMINAL CONVICTION IS OVERTURNED ON APPEAL. ………...……………
...............................................................................................
24 1. Standard of Review……….
.............................................................. 24
a. Waiver……………………………………….. ............................. 24 b. De
Novo…………………………………. .................................. 25 2. The
Merits……………….
...............................................................
25
A. Section 16-13-307(1.6) Is Susceptible To Differing
Interpretations.………………………………………………...27
B. To The Extent There Is Ambiguity In Section
16-13-307(1.6)’s
Remedial Provision, The Rule Of Lenity Requires That The
Ambiguities Be Resolved In Mr. Strand’s Favor
………………………….……………………………………..31
III. CONSISTENT WITH THIS COURT’S PRONOUNCEMENTS IN AHART v.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 964 P.2D 517, 520 (COLO. 1998)
, AND WITH DECISIONS OF NUMEROUS OTHER COURTS, THE COURT OF APPEALS
PROPERLY CONCLUDED THAT THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE APPLIES TO CIVIL
FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS. ………...……………
...............................................................................................
32 1. Standard of Review……….
.............................................................. 32
a. Waiver……………………………………….. ............................. 32 b. De
Novo…………………………………. .................................. 33 2. The
Merits……………….
...............................................................
33
http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1998194586&wbtoolsId=1998194586&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1998194586&wbtoolsId=1998194586&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1998194586&wbtoolsId=1998194586&HistoryType=N
-
iii
IV. THE COURT OF APPEALS PROPERLY CONCLUDED THAT THE CIVIL
FORFEITURE JUDGMENT WAS “BASED ON” THE RELATED CRIMINAL CONVICTION
FOR PURPOSES OF C.R.C.P. 60(B)(4) . ………...……………
...............................................................................................
38 1. Standard of Review……….
.............................................................. 38
a. Abuse of Discretion……………………………………….. ...... 38 b. De
Novo…………………………………. .................................. 38 2. The
Merits……………….
............................................................... 38
CONCLUSION
........................................................................................................
42 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
..............................................................................
43
TABLE OF CASES
Ahart v. Colorado Dept. of Corrections, Div. of Adult Services,
964 P.2d 517 (Colo. 1998)
............................................................................................
12 n.3, 35, 36 n.13
Allen v. Steele, 252 P.3d 476 (Colo. 2011)
................................................... 19-20
Associated Governments of Nw. Colorado v. Colorado Pub.
Utilities Comm'n, 275 P.3d 646 (Colo. 2012)
..................................................................................................
13-14
Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993)
..................................................... 12
Benton v. Adams, 56 P.3d 81 (Colo. 2002)
............................................... 39 n.15
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886)
.................................................. 12 n.3
Centennial Bank of the W. v. Taylor, 143 P.3d 1140 (Colo. App.
2006) ........... 22
City of Omaha v. Savard-Henson, 615 N.W.2d 497 (Neb. App. 2000)
.....................
................................................................................................................
34-35, 36 n.13
City of Walla Walla v. $401,333.44, 262 P.3d 1239 (Wash. App.
2011) ............ 14
http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005387&DocName=COSTRCPR60&wbtoolsId=COSTRCPR60&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005387&DocName=COSTRCPR60&wbtoolsId=COSTRCPR60&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005387&DocName=COSTRCPR60&wbtoolsId=COSTRCPR60&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1998194586&wbtoolsId=1998194586&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1998194586&wbtoolsId=1998194586&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1998194586&wbtoolsId=1998194586&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2025255696&wbtoolsId=2025255696&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2025255696&wbtoolsId=2025255696&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2027542400&wbtoolsId=2027542400&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2027542400&wbtoolsId=2027542400&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1993130661&wbtoolsId=1993130661&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1993130661&wbtoolsId=1993130661&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2002650291&wbtoolsId=2002650291&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2002650291&wbtoolsId=2002650291&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1886180156&wbtoolsId=1886180156&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1886180156&wbtoolsId=1886180156&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2009696406&wbtoolsId=2009696406&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2009696406&wbtoolsId=2009696406&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000595&serialnum=2000464859&wbtoolsId=2000464859&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2026285996&wbtoolsId=2026285996&HistoryType=F
-
iv
Colorado Water Conservation Bd. v. Upper Gunnison River Water
Conservancy Dist.,
109 P.3d 585 (Colo. 2005)
....................................................................................
30
Com. v. Dennis, 695 A.2d 409 (Pa. 1997)
..............................................................
16
Com. v. Perez, 941 A.2d 778 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008)
................................................ 14
Craven v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 117 P.3d 11 (Colo.
App. 2004)
..............................................................................................................................
12 n.3
Davidson v. McClellan, 16 P.3d 233 (Colo. 2001)
.............................................. 23
E.B. Jones Const. Co. v. City & County of Denver, 717 P.2d
1009 (Colo. App. 1986)
........................................................................................................................
22
Ex parte Linnell, 484 So. 2d 455 (Ala. 1986)
........................................................ 16
Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Benzing, 206 P.3d 812 (Colo. 2009)
............................. 16
Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259 (1984)
.................................................. 24
FleetBoston Financial Corp. v. FleetBostonFinancial.com, 138
F.Supp.2d 121 (D. Mass. 2001)
..........................................................................................................
13 n.4 Francen v. Colorado Dept. of Revenue, Div. of Motor
Vehicles, -- P.3d --, 2012 COA 110 (Colo. App. July 5, 2012)
..........................................................................
36 n.12
Fugere v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 103, (1990), aff'd, 972 F.2d
331 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................
24 Garcia v. Schneider Energy Services, Inc., 287 P.3d 112 (Colo.
2012) ......................... 37
Gerrish v. Barnes, 844 P.2d 315 (Utah 1992)
........................................................ 16
Goodman Associates, LLC v. WP Mountain Properties, LLC, 222 P.3d
310 (Colo. 2010)
........................................................................................................................
37
http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2006341118&wbtoolsId=2006341118&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2006341118&wbtoolsId=2006341118&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2006341118&wbtoolsId=2006341118&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000162&serialnum=1997121175&wbtoolsId=1997121175&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000162&serialnum=2014959621&wbtoolsId=2014959621&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2004229223&wbtoolsId=2004229223&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2004229223&wbtoolsId=2004229223&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2001080342&wbtoolsId=2001080342&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2001080342&wbtoolsId=2001080342&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1986118668&wbtoolsId=1986118668&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1986118668&wbtoolsId=1986118668&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1986118668&wbtoolsId=1986118668&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000735&serialnum=1986112877&wbtoolsId=1986112877&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2018681524&wbtoolsId=2018681524&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2018681524&wbtoolsId=2018681524&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1984108877&wbtoolsId=1984108877&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1984108877&wbtoolsId=1984108877&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004637&serialnum=2001305713&wbtoolsId=2001305713&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004637&serialnum=2001305713&wbtoolsId=2001305713&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000463&serialnum=1991135809&wbtoolsId=1991135809&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000350&serialnum=1992142301&wbtoolsId=1992142301&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000350&serialnum=1992142301&wbtoolsId=1992142301&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2028965342&wbtoolsId=2028965342&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1992219644&wbtoolsId=1992219644&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2021079025&wbtoolsId=2021079025&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2021079025&wbtoolsId=2021079025&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2021079025&wbtoolsId=2021079025&HistoryType=F
-
v
Hendricks v. People, 10 P.3d 1231 (Colo. 2000)
................................................ 25
Hoff v. Armbruster, 125 Colo. 324, 244 P.2d 1069 (1952)
............................... 13
In re B.B.O., 277 P.3d 818 (Colo. 2012)
...............................................................
25
In re Forfeiture of Fourteen Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Nine
Dollars ($14,639) in
U.S. Currency in Various Denominations & Two (2) Digital
Pagers, 902 P.2d 563 (N.M. App. 1995)
......................................................................................................
21
In re Forfeiture of $180,975, 734 N.W.2d 489 (Mich. 2007)
.......................... 33, 34
In re Racing Services, Inc., 571 F.3d 729 (8th Cir. 2009)
........................................ 39
INS v. Lopez–Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984)
..................................................... 34
Isham v. People, 82 Colo. 550, 262 P. 89 (1927)
............................................. 12-13
Livera v. First Nat'l State Bank, 879 F.2d 1186 (3d Cir.
1989)............................ 40
Lubben v. Selective Serv. Sys. Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645
(1st Cir. 1972) .. 40
Manzanares v. City of Albuquerque, 628 F.3d 1237 (10th Cir.
2010) ................... 39
Miller v. Toler, 729 S.E.2d 137 (W.Va. 2012)
.............................................. 35 n.12
Mora v. United States, 955 F.2d 156 (2d Cir. 1992)
....................................... 17 n.6
O'Donnell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 186 P.3d 46 (Colo.
2008) ... 19 n.8
One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693 (1965)
.............. 12 n.3, 34
One 1995 Corvette VIN# 1G1YY22P585103433 v. Mayor and City
Council of Baltimore, 724 A.2d 680 (Md. 1999)
............................................... 34, 35 & n.11,
36
Pennington v. Fourth Nat'l Bank, 243 U.S. 269 (1917)
.......................................... 13
http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2000515288&wbtoolsId=2000515288&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2000515288&wbtoolsId=2000515288&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000267&serialnum=1952112380&wbtoolsId=1952112380&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000267&serialnum=1952112380&wbtoolsId=1952112380&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2027808298&wbtoolsId=2027808298&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1995177892&wbtoolsId=1995177892&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1995177892&wbtoolsId=1995177892&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1995177892&wbtoolsId=1995177892&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000595&serialnum=2012608037&wbtoolsId=2012608037&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000506&serialnum=2019263049&wbtoolsId=2019263049&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1984132651&wbtoolsId=1984132651&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000267&serialnum=1928120166&wbtoolsId=1928120166&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000350&serialnum=1989108042&wbtoolsId=1989108042&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000350&serialnum=1972107886&wbtoolsId=1972107886&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000350&serialnum=1972107886&wbtoolsId=1972107886&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000506&serialnum=2024099919&wbtoolsId=2024099919&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000711&serialnum=2027869236&wbtoolsId=2027869236&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000350&serialnum=1992033144&wbtoolsId=1992033144&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2016270466&wbtoolsId=2016270466&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2016270466&wbtoolsId=2016270466&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1965125070&wbtoolsId=1965125070&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000162&serialnum=1999061841&wbtoolsId=1999061841&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000162&serialnum=1999061841&wbtoolsId=1999061841&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1917100305&wbtoolsId=1917100305&HistoryType=N
-
vi
People v. Casias, -- P.3d --, 2012 COA 117 (Colo. App. July 19,
2012) .......... 24, 33
People v. Cerrone, 780 P.2d 562 (Colo. App. 1989)
........................................... 31
People v. Elvin L. Gentry, P.C., 107 P.3d 1094 (Colo. App. 2004)
.................. 30
People ex rel. A.E.L., 181 P.3d 1186 (Colo. App. 2008)
........................ 36 n.14
People v. $11,200.00 U.S. Currency, -- P.3d --, 2011 WL 3612233
(Colo. App. Aug. 18, 2011)
.................................................................................................
9, 17, 19
People v. Garner, 732 P.2d 1194 (Colo. 1987)
................................................... 12
People v. Grell, 950 P.2d 660 (Colo. App. 1997)
............................................... 13
People v. Guthrie, 286 P.3d 530 (Colo. 2012)
.................................................. 33-34
People in Interest of Clinton, 762 P.2d 1381 (Colo. 1988)
.................................. 14
People v. Lot 23, 735 P.2d 184 (Colo. 1987)
..................................................... 12
People v. Maser, 278 P.3d 361 (Colo. 2012)
.......................................................... 11
People v. Mershon, 874 P.2d 1025 (Colo. 1994)
........................................... 15, 33
People v. Milton, 732 P.2d 1199 (Colo. 1987)
.................................................... 12
People v. Morley, 4 P.3d 1078 (Colo. 2000)
........................................................ 33
People v. One 1968 Chevrolet 2-Door VIN: 1123378L310864, 895
P.2d 1177 (Colo. App. 1995)
..................................................................................................
27
People v. One 1988 Mazda 323, VIN JM1BF232XJ0131664, 857 P.2d
569 (Colo. App. 1993)
..................................................................................................
31
People ex rel. Sandstrom v. District Court, 884 P.2d 707 (Colo.
1994) ..... 40 n.16
People v. Summers, 208 P.3d 251 (Colo. 2009)
.................................................. 31
http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1989113700&wbtoolsId=1989113700&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1989113700&wbtoolsId=1989113700&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2005513772&wbtoolsId=2005513772&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2005513772&wbtoolsId=2005513772&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2015412496&wbtoolsId=2015412496&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2015412496&wbtoolsId=2015412496&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000999&serialnum=2025900461&wbtoolsId=2025900461&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000999&serialnum=2025900461&wbtoolsId=2025900461&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1987023654&wbtoolsId=1987023654&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1987023654&wbtoolsId=1987023654&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1997175738&wbtoolsId=1997175738&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1997175738&wbtoolsId=1997175738&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2028749017&wbtoolsId=2028749017&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1988131411&wbtoolsId=1988131411&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1988131411&wbtoolsId=1988131411&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1987047320&wbtoolsId=1987047320&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1987047320&wbtoolsId=1987047320&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2027837947&wbtoolsId=2027837947&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1994088584&wbtoolsId=1994088584&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1994088584&wbtoolsId=1994088584&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1987023647&wbtoolsId=1987023647&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1987023647&wbtoolsId=1987023647&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2000387326&wbtoolsId=2000387326&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2000387326&wbtoolsId=2000387326&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1995093531&wbtoolsId=1995093531&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1995093531&wbtoolsId=1995093531&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1995093531&wbtoolsId=1995093531&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1993136083&wbtoolsId=1993136083&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1993136083&wbtoolsId=1993136083&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1993136083&wbtoolsId=1993136083&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1994229212&wbtoolsId=1994229212&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1994229212&wbtoolsId=1994229212&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2018906769&wbtoolsId=2018906769&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2018906769&wbtoolsId=2018906769&HistoryType=N
-
vii
People v. Thirty-three Thousand Two Hundred and Twelve Dollars,
83 P.3d 1206
(Colo. App. 2003)
..................................................................................................
25
People v. Thoro Products Co., Inc., 70 P.3d 1188 (Colo. 2003)
........................... 31
People v. Wilson, 251 P.3d 507 (Colo. App. 2010)
............................................ 12
Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc. v. Porsche.net, 302 F.3d 248 (4th Cir.
2002) .......... 14, 15
Republic Nat'l Bank of Miami v. United States, 506 U.S. 80
(1992) .......... 13, 18, 21
Sanctuary House, Inc. v. Krause, 177 P.3d 1256 (Colo. 2008)
............................ 12
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. McMillan, 925 P.2d 785 (Colo.
1996) ......... 22
State v. Catlett, 945 P.2d 700 (Wash. 1997)
.......................................................... 36
State v. One 1990 Chevrolet Corvette VIN: 1G1YY3388L5111488, 695
A.2d 502 (R.I. 1997)
...................................................................................................................
36
United States v. Aiello, 912 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1990)
.......................................... 18 n.7
United States v. Chambers, 192 F.3d 374 (3d Cir. 1999)
................................ 17 n.6
United States v. Duenas, 691 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2012)
....................................... 33 United States v. 51
Pieces of Real Prop. Roswell, N.M., 17 F.3d 1306 (10th Cir. 1994)
..................................................................................................................
13, 18 n.7, 37
United States v. $46,588.00 in U.S. Currency and $20.00 in
Canadian Currency, 103 F.3d 902 (9th Cir. 1996)
.............................................................................................
17
United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 (1976)
......................................................... 34
United States v. Marrocco, 578 F.3d 627 (7th Cir. 2009)
....................................... 34
http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2003937404&wbtoolsId=2003937404&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2003937404&wbtoolsId=2003937404&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2003937404&wbtoolsId=2003937404&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2003358551&wbtoolsId=2003358551&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2003358551&wbtoolsId=2003358551&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2022371190&wbtoolsId=2022371190&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2022371190&wbtoolsId=2022371190&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000506&serialnum=2002540578&wbtoolsId=2002540578&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1992213102&wbtoolsId=1992213102&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2015382539&wbtoolsId=2015382539&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2015382539&wbtoolsId=2015382539&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1996240815&wbtoolsId=1996240815&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1996240815&wbtoolsId=1996240815&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1997208490&wbtoolsId=1997208490&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000162&serialnum=1997127603&wbtoolsId=1997127603&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000162&serialnum=1997127603&wbtoolsId=1997127603&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000350&serialnum=1990118802&wbtoolsId=1990118802&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000506&serialnum=1999209751&wbtoolsId=1999209751&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000506&serialnum=2028417627&wbtoolsId=2028417627&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000506&serialnum=1994055626&wbtoolsId=1994055626&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000506&serialnum=1994055626&wbtoolsId=1994055626&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000506&serialnum=1996281307&wbtoolsId=1996281307&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000506&serialnum=1996281307&wbtoolsId=1996281307&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1976142453&wbtoolsId=1976142453&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1976142453&wbtoolsId=1976142453&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000506&serialnum=2019662865&wbtoolsId=2019662865&HistoryType=F
-
viii
United States v. $95,945.18, U.S. Currency, 913 F.2d 1106 (4th
Cir. 1990) ....17, 20
United States v. One Lear Jet Aircraft, Serial No. 35A-280,
Registration No. YN-BVO, 836 F.2d 1571 (11th Cir. 1988)
.....................................................................
17
United States v. Premises & Real Prop. at 4492 S. Livonia
Rd., Livonia, N.Y., 889 F.2d 1258 (2d Cir. 1989)
...........................................................................................
37
United States v. $2,490.00 in U.S. Currency, 825 F.2d 1419 (9th
Cir. 1987) ....... 20
United States v. One Lot of $25,721.00 in Currency, 938 F.2d
1417 (1st Cir. 1991) .
........................................................................................................................
18 n.7, 20
United States v. One 1973 Rolls Royce, V.I.N. SRH-16266, 43 F.3d
794 (3d Cir. 1994)
............................................................................................................................
31
United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891 (1975)
............................................................ 16
United States v. Real Property Located At 265 Falcon Road, 2010
WL 104660 (S.D. Ill. 2010) (unpublished)
.............................................................................................
34
United States v. Tit's Cocktail Lounge, 873 F.2d 141 (7th Cir.
1989) .................... 20
United States v. Twelve Thousand, Three Hundred Ninety Dollars
($12,390.00), 956 F.2d 801 (8th Cir. 1992)
.............................................................................................
17
United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (1996)
............................................. 35 n.11
United States v. Wilkinson, 686 P.2d 790 (Colo. 1984)
......................................... 29 U.S Warden v. Hayden,
387 U.S. 294 (1967) ..............................................
12 n.3
Vensor v. People, 151 P.3d 1274 (Colo. 2007)
................................................... 25
Ventura Packers, Inc. v. F/V JEANINE KATHLEEN, 424 F.3d 852 (9th
Cir. 2005)
.....................................................................................................................
18 n.7
Walker v. City of Denver, 720 P.2d 619 (Colo. App. 1986)
.............................. 31
http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000350&serialnum=1990132544&wbtoolsId=1990132544&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000350&serialnum=1988013999&wbtoolsId=1988013999&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000350&serialnum=1988013999&wbtoolsId=1988013999&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000350&serialnum=1989165826&wbtoolsId=1989165826&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000350&serialnum=1989165826&wbtoolsId=1989165826&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000350&serialnum=1987106621&wbtoolsId=1987106621&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000350&serialnum=1991125704&wbtoolsId=1991125704&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000506&serialnum=1994234394&wbtoolsId=1994234394&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000506&serialnum=1994234394&wbtoolsId=1994234394&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1975129842&wbtoolsId=1975129842&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000999&serialnum=2021074397&wbtoolsId=2021074397&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000999&serialnum=2021074397&wbtoolsId=2021074397&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000350&serialnum=1989065134&wbtoolsId=1989065134&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000350&serialnum=1992038002&wbtoolsId=1992038002&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000350&serialnum=1992038002&wbtoolsId=1992038002&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1996140015&wbtoolsId=1996140015&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1996140015&wbtoolsId=1996140015&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1984141315&wbtoolsId=1984141315&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1967129530&wbtoolsId=1967129530&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1967129530&wbtoolsId=1967129530&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2011371688&wbtoolsId=2011371688&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2011371688&wbtoolsId=2011371688&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000506&serialnum=2007305089&wbtoolsId=2007305089&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000506&serialnum=2007305089&wbtoolsId=2007305089&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1986112032&wbtoolsId=1986112032&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1986112032&wbtoolsId=1986112032&HistoryType=C
-
ix
TABLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS United States Constitution
Amendment IV………………………………………………………33 Colorado Constitution Article
II, §7……………………………………………………...........33
TABLE OF STATUTES AND RULES Colorado Revised Statutes Section
16-13-302, C.R.S . (2010)
.......................................................... 29
Section 16-13-302, C.R.S . (2010)
.......................................................... 27
Section 16-13-307, C.R.S . (2012)
................................................. passim Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) ……………………………………………39
n.15 Colorado Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule
8………………………………………………………………19 Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure Rule
60
.............................................................................................
passim Rule 62
.............................................................................................................
19
http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-302&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-302&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-302&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-302&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-302&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-302&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-302&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-302&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000600&DocName=USFRCPR60&wbtoolsId=USFRCPR60&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000600&DocName=USFRCPR60&wbtoolsId=USFRCPR60&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000600&DocName=USFRCPR60&wbtoolsId=USFRCPR60&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000600&DocName=USFRCPR60&wbtoolsId=USFRCPR60&HistoryType=C
-
1
ISSUES ANNOUNCED BY THE COURT
I. Whether the trial court lost subject matter jurisdiction in
the in rem forfeiture
proceeding when it distributed the personal property, $11,200,
pursuant to its
unappealed final order.
II. Whether section 16-13-307(1.6), C.R.S . (2011), provides
affirmative relief
from an unappealed final order of forfeiture when a claimant’s
criminal conviction is
overturned on appeal.
III. Whether, contrary to this court’s holding in Ahart v.
Colorado Department of
Corrections, 964 P.2d 517, 520 (Colo. 1998) , the court of
appeals erred in holding that
the exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture proceedings
without conducting an
analysis in this case utilizing the enumerated two-part
balancing test.
IV. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that, for
purposes of C.R.C.P.
60(b)(4) , the civil forfeiture judgment was “based on” the
related criminal
conviction when the civil forfeiture judgment was attained
through a separate and full
hearing on the merits, evidence of the criminal conviction was
only one piece of
evidence submitted at the hearing, and a criminal conviction is
not required for a civil
forfeiture judgment.
http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1998194586&wbtoolsId=1998194586&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1998194586&wbtoolsId=1998194586&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1998194586&wbtoolsId=1998194586&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005387&DocName=COSTRCPR60&wbtoolsId=COSTRCPR60&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005387&DocName=COSTRCPR60&wbtoolsId=COSTRCPR60&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005387&DocName=COSTRCPR60&wbtoolsId=COSTRCPR60&HistoryType=C
-
2
COMBINED STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND THE FACTS
This case involves the forfeiture of $11,200.00 in U.S. Currency
illegally seized
pursuant to a stale warrant. The court of appeals affirmed the
trial court’s considered
judgment that the government must return the currency to Mr.
Strand.
1. The Parallel Criminal Action
On January 30, 2004, investigators arranged for a confidential
informant – Mr.
Strand’s disgruntled ex-girlfriend – to make a controlled
drug-purchase from him. (v.
I: 5; Tr. 6/9/06: 32, 103-05, 108, 134, 138). Although police
did not witness the
transaction, the informant nevertheless returned with a quantity
of drugs that she
claimed had been supplied by defendant. (v. I: 5; Tr. 6/9/06:
32-33, 62).
A warrant authorizing a search of Mr. Strand’s residence was
subsequently
approved on February 2, 2004. (v. I: 5; Tr. 6/9/06: 35). Nine
days later, authorities
executed the warrant and conducted a search of both Mr. Strand’s
house and a truck
parked outside. (v. I: 6; Tr. 6/9/06: 35-36). Various items were
seized in the course
of the search, including bundles of currency containing some of
the marked bills used
in the earlier drug-buy. (v. I: 6; Tr. 6/9/06: 36-37, 39-40,
53-54, 78-81, 86-87).
Police arrested Mr. Strand, and he submitted to a custodial
interview. (v. I: 6-7;
Tr. 6/9/06: 40). The detective who conducted the interview
claimed that Mr. Strand
-
3
eventually admitted to possessing and selling drugs.1 (v. I:
6-7; Tr. 6/9/06: 40-41, 42-
43). Mr. Strand vigorously disputed this. (Tr. 6/9/06: 63-64,
73-74, 144-46).
On February 12, 2004, the prosecution charged Mr. Strand for
allegedly
distributing and possessing methamphetamine. (v. I: 2, 7).
Prior to trial, Mr. Strand filed motions seeking to suppress the
items seized in
the course of the search. The district court ordered suppression
of some of the
evidence, but otherwise denied the motions. (E-File: 46-47).
The case ultimately proceeded to trial and, on January 14, 2005,
a jury returned
verdicts of guilty. (Envelope II: Plaintiff’s Ex. 1). The trial
court adjudicated Mr.
Strand an habitual criminal on July 14, 2005, and proceeded to
sentence him to
concurrent terms of 64 and 24 years in the Department of
Corrections. (Id.)
Mr. Strand appealed from the judgment of conviction.
2. The Civil Forfeiture Action
On April 8, 2004, the district attorney commenced a forfeiture
action against
the currency at issue here, pursuant to the Abatement of Public
Nuisance Act (“the
Act” or “the statute”), §§ 16-13-301 through - 316, C.R.S .
(2012). (v. I: 1-8).
These proceedings were stayed during the pendency of the
parallel criminal case, in
accordance with section 16-13-307(1.5), C.R.S . (2012). ( Id. at
22-24 ). After
1 No audio or video recording of the interview exists. (Tr.
6/9/06: 70-71, 72).
http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-301&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-301&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-301&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-301&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-316&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-316&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-316&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-316&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&cite=117PC3D22&wbtoolsId=2004229223&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&cite=117PC3D22&wbtoolsId=2004229223&HistoryType=C
-
4
the conclusion of the criminal case, the district attorney took
action to reinitiate
forfeiture proceedings. ( Id. at 38-40 ).
Trial counsel in the criminal matter filed an Answer to the
forfeiture Complaint
on Mr. Strand’s behalf. (E-File: 107-11). Mr. Strand generally
denied the allegations,
and furthermore asserted a variety of affirmative defenses to
the forfeiture claim,
including the defense that the subject property had been
illegally seized from his
residence. ( Id. at 107-08). The trial court permitted counsel
to withdraw after filing
the Answer. (Id. at 112-18).
Mr. Strand, who, by this time, had commenced serving his prison
sentence in
the parallel criminal action, represented himself throughout the
remainder of the
proceedings. (Tr. 6/9/06: 5-7, 18-21). Although defendant filed
numerous pro se
motions seeking the release or return of the subject currency,
he did not expressly
argue for return of the currency on grounds that it had been
unlawfully seized. (v. I:
25-29, 92-96, 112-22, 151-57; E-File: 1-7).
The trial court conducted a hearing on the merits on June 9,
2006. (Tr.
6/9/06: 3-166). The district attorney sought to prove up the
public nuisance and
forfeiture claim by introducing the following evidence:
http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&cite=117PC3D38&wbtoolsId=2004229223&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&cite=117PC3D38&wbtoolsId=2004229223&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000463&serialnum=1991135809&wbtoolsId=1991135809&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2028965342&wbtoolsId=2028965342&HistoryType=F
-
5
• official court documents and testimony establishing that
Mr. Strand suffered convictions in the parallel criminal
action,
(Envelope: Plaintiff’s Ex. 1; Tr. 6/9/06: 44); and,
• testimony and other evidence concerning the subject
currency and other contraband seized in the course of the
search
conducted on February 11, 2004. (Tr. 6/9/06: 36-42, 45-49,
78-
81, 86-87).
On June 10, 2006, the trial court issued an order entering
judgment against Mr.
Strand and the subject currency. (v. I: 79-83). The court found
in pertinent part that:
• Mr. Strand’s convictions in the parallel criminal action
constituted Class 1 public nuisances, ( Id. at 82); and,
• the commission of these public nuisance acts warranted
forfeiture of the subject property. ( Id. at 82-83).
On July 14, 2006, the trial court entered an order directing
that the forfeited
proceeds be placed on the district court registry and made
available for distribution.
(v. I: 85, 169). The currency was thereafter deposited with the
district court and
distributed in accordance with section 16-13-311(3), C.R.S .
(2012). (v. I: 131-45,
150, 159-60).
http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1992213102&wbtoolsId=1992213102&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1992213102&wbtoolsId=1992213102&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-311&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-311&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-311&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-311&HistoryType=N
-
6
Mr. Strand filed various pro se objections to the court’s
forfeiture and
distribution orders, all of which were overruled. (v. I: 86-88,
92-101, 112-25, 128-29,
151-57, 163-64). Although Mr. Strand did not appeal directly
from the trial court’s
order, he did repeatedly petition the court to delay the
distribution of the seized
currency and to set aside the order of forfeiture.2 ( Id. at
86-88, 93-97, 112-22, 151-
57).
3. The Direct Appeal of the Conviction and the Resulting
Dismissal
On February 26, 2009, approximately two-and-a-half years after
the order of
forfeiture entered, a division of the court of appeals reversed
the judgment imposed in
the parallel criminal action, on grounds that the search
performed on February 11,
2004, was conducted pursuant to a stale warrant, and was
therefore unconstitutional.
(E-File: 43-64).
The Attorney General elected not to seek further review in this
Court, and, on
May 5, 2009, the court of appeals’ Mandate issued. (E-File:
65).
The prosecution took no action to reinitiate criminal
proceedings within the
time-limits prescribed by section 18-1-405(2), C.R.S . (2012),
and Mr. Strand’s
public defender promptly moved to dismiss the case on speedy
trial grounds. The
2 Indeed, Mr. Strand implored the court at the hearing on the
merits not to dispose of the subject currency while his appeal in
the criminal case remained pending. (Tr. 6/9/06: 162, 164).
http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1992213102&wbtoolsId=1992213102&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1992213102&wbtoolsId=1992213102&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS18-1-405&wbtoolsId=COSTS18-1-405&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS18-1-405&wbtoolsId=COSTS18-1-405&HistoryType=C
-
7
prosecution responded to defendant’s motion with its own motion
to dismiss, and on
November 25, 2009, the district court entered an order
dismissing the case. (E-File:
66-67).
4. The Motion for Relief from Judgment
On February 11, 2010, roughly three months after his conviction
in the parallel
criminal action had been dismissed, and more than
three-and-a-half years after entry
of the forfeiture order, Mr. Strand filed a “Motion For Relief
From Judgment
Pursuant To C.R.C.P. 60(B) And Request For Return Of Forfeited
Property In
Accordance With Section 16-13-307(1.6), C.R.S . (2009), Crim. P.
41(E)(5) ,
And The United States And Colorado Constitutions.” (E-File:
13-67).
The prosecution objected to Mr. Strand’s motion on grounds that
it had not
been made within “a reasonable time,” and that the relief sought
was either barred by
the equitable doctrine of laches or was otherwise unavailable
under section 16-13-
307(1.6) . (E-File: 68-69). While the district attorney took the
position that Mr.
Strand could not recover funds that had already been distributed
and spent, he
nevertheless conceded that Mr. Strand was probably entitled to
receive whatever
portion of the forfeited proceeds remained on the court’s
registry. ( Id. at 69 ).
Mr. Strand filed a written response addressing these objections.
( Id. at 72-
76 ).
http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005387&DocName=COSTRCPR60&wbtoolsId=COSTRCPR60&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005387&DocName=COSTRCPR60&wbtoolsId=COSTRCPR60&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005376&DocName=COSTRCRPR41&wbtoolsId=COSTRCRPR41&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005376&DocName=COSTRCRPR41&wbtoolsId=COSTRCRPR41&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&cite=186PC3D69&wbtoolsId=2016270466&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&cite=186PC3D69&wbtoolsId=2016270466&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&cite=186PC3D72&wbtoolsId=2016270466&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&cite=186PC3D72&wbtoolsId=2016270466&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&cite=186PC3D72&wbtoolsId=2016270466&HistoryType=C
-
8
The trial court ordered that the matter be set for a hearing,
and, on May 11,
2010, the parties appeared for argument on the motions. (E-File:
123; Tr. 5/11.10: 3-
20).
On July 23, 2010, the court issued a written order granting the
relief requested,
reasoning that:
Mr. Strand’s motion pursuant to C.R.C.P. 60(b) was
brought within “a reasonable time,” (E-File: 86-87);
the validity of the forfeiture order was fatally undermined
by
the admission of unconstitutionally seized evidence and by
the
subsequent dismissal of the criminal case that served as the
basis for the forfeiture, ( Id. at 84-86); and,
the dismissal of the parallel criminal action required the
return
of the forfeited currency pursuant to section 16-13-
307(1.6) . ( Id. at 85-86).
This appeal followed.
5. The Court of Appeals’ Opinion
The court of appeals unanimously affirmed trial court’s order
granting relief,
concluding that:
http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005387&DocName=COSTRCPR60&wbtoolsId=COSTRCPR60&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005387&DocName=COSTRCPR60&wbtoolsId=COSTRCPR60&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1992213102&wbtoolsId=1992213102&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1992213102&wbtoolsId=1992213102&HistoryType=N
-
9
under the particular circumstances of this case, defendant’s
C.R.C.P. 60 motion must be considered reasonably timely;
the suppression of evidence seized in the parallel criminal
case was relevant to, and provided a basis for relief from
the
judgment in, the civil forfeiture action;
Mr. Strand’s post-trial motion was properly made pursuant
to C.R.C.P. 60(b)(4) ; and,
section 16-13-307(1.6) granted the trial court the
authority to order the return of the subject currency, even
though
it had already been distributed and spent.
People v. $11,200.00 U.S. Currency, -- P.3d --, 2011 WL 3612233,
**2-3 (Colo. App.
Aug. 18, 2011).
The district attorney sought, and this Court granted, a writ of
certiorari to
review the court of appeals’ judgment.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
I. The prosecution’s jurisdictional argument has been waived. In
either event,
the argument fails on its merits. Most courts – following the
lead of the United States
Supreme Court – recognize that continuing possession of the
subject property is not
necessary to maintain jurisdiction over an in rem forfeiture
action. Additionally, the
http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005387&DocName=COSTRCPR60&wbtoolsId=COSTRCPR60&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005387&DocName=COSTRCPR60&wbtoolsId=COSTRCPR60&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005387&DocName=COSTRCPR60&wbtoolsId=COSTRCPR60&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005387&DocName=COSTRCPR60&wbtoolsId=COSTRCPR60&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyCite/default.wl?rs=kmkh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&cite=COSTS16-13-307&kmDocName=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=N&FindType=Y&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyCite/default.wl?rs=kmkh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&cite=COSTS16-13-307&kmDocName=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=N&FindType=Y&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000999&serialnum=2025900461&wbtoolsId=2025900461&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000999&serialnum=2025900461&wbtoolsId=2025900461&HistoryType=N
-
10
fact that the forfeiture order was not appealed is of no
consequence, as Mr. Strand
was collaterally estopped from challenging the legality of the
seizure of the subject
property.
II. The prosecution’s arguments concerning the proper
interpretation of section
16-13-307(1.6), C.R.S . (2012), were not properly presented
below, and therefore
have been waived. Regardless, section 16-13-307(1.6) is
reasonably susceptible to
differing interpretations, and the rule of lenity requires that
the ambiguities in the
statute be construed in Mr. Strand’s favor.
III. The prosecution’s arguments concerning the applicability of
the exclusionary
rule to civil forfeiture proceedings were not properly presented
below, and therefore
have been waived. Even if the Court were to reach these
arguments, it would have
little trouble concluding that the court of appeals, consistent
with the position taken
by the majority of courts, properly determined that exclusionary
rule applies to civil
forfeiture actions.
IV. The trial court properly concluded, and the court of appeals
correctly affirmed,
that the forfeiture order in this case was “based on” the
judgment in the parallel
criminal case ultimately reversed on appeal, and that C.R.C.P.
60(b)(4) therefore
provided an appropriate vehicle for seeking relief from the
forfeiture order.
http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005387&DocName=COSTRCPR60&wbtoolsId=COSTRCPR60&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005387&DocName=COSTRCPR60&wbtoolsId=COSTRCPR60&HistoryType=C
-
11
ARGUMENT
I. THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT LOSE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IN
THIS IN REM FORFEITURE PROCEEDING WHEN IT DISTRIBUTED THE PERSONAL
PROPERTY, $11,200, PURSUANT TO ITS UNAPPEALED FINAL ORDER. 1.
Standard of Review
Jurisdiction is a question of law, which this Court reviews de
novo. People v.
Maser, 278 P.3d 361, 364 (Colo. 2012).
2. The Merits Mr. Strand asserts that: (A) the alleged defect in
the trial court’s jurisdiction
implicates issues relative to personal – not subject matter –
jurisdiction; (B) any
putative defect has been waived as a result of the prosecution’s
failure to properly
raise the issue below; (C) even if the issue is properly before
the Court, the prevailing
view is that removal or transfer of the res does not terminate
the in rem jurisdiction of
the court; and, (D) the fact that Mr. Strand did not appeal the
order of forfeiture is of
no consequence, as he would have been collaterally estopped from
challenging the
legality of the seizure of the currency on direct appeal.
A. Any Alleged Defect In The Trial Court’s Jurisdiction
Implicates Questions Of Personal – Not Subject Matter –
Jurisdiction.
The question presented for the Court’s review appears premised
on the notion
that the transfer, disposal, loss, or destruction of the
property – or the res – at the
http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2027837947&wbtoolsId=2027837947&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2027837947&wbtoolsId=2027837947&HistoryType=F
-
12
center of an in rem civil forfeiture action necessarily
implicates a trial court’s subject
matter jurisdiction. Answer Br. at 13-18. The premise is
fundamentally flawed.
Although the Abatement of Public Nuisance statute is housed
within Title 16,
Article 13 of the criminal code, forfeiture actions brought
pursuant to its provisions
traditionally have been characterized as civil in rem
proceedings.3 People v. Lot 23,
735 P.2d 184, 189 n.2 (Colo. 1987); People v. Milton, 732 P.2d
1199, 1204 (Colo.
1987) . This characterization proceeds from the fiction that the
res is essentially the
“offender” in forfeiture actions. People v. Garner, 732 P.2d
1194, 1196 (Colo.
1987) ; accord Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 615-16
(1993) (collecting
cases).
It is axiomatic that a court's jurisdiction consists of two
elements: jurisdiction
over the subject matter (subject matter jurisdiction) and
jurisdiction over the parties
and property before it (personal, in rem, or quasi in rem
jurisdiction). E.g., Sanctuary
House, Inc. v. Krause, 177 P.3d 1256, 1258 (Colo. 2008) .
Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by the constitution and
laws of the
state. People v. Wilson, 251 P.3d 507, 508 (Colo. App. 2010)
(citing Isham v.
3 At the same time, however, courts have determined that such
proceedings are “quasi-criminal” in nature. Ahart v. Colorado Dept.
of Corrections, 964 P.2d 517, 520 & n.3 (Colo. 1998); see also
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 634 (1886) , overruled on
other grounds, Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967) ; One 1958
Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693, 701 (1965).
http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1987047320&wbtoolsId=1987047320&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1987047320&wbtoolsId=1987047320&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1987047320&wbtoolsId=1987047320&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1987023647&wbtoolsId=1987023647&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1987023647&wbtoolsId=1987023647&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1987023647&wbtoolsId=1987023647&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1987023654&wbtoolsId=1987023654&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1987023654&wbtoolsId=1987023654&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1987023654&wbtoolsId=1987023654&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1993130661&wbtoolsId=1993130661&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1993130661&wbtoolsId=1993130661&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2015382539&wbtoolsId=2015382539&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2015382539&wbtoolsId=2015382539&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2015382539&wbtoolsId=2015382539&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2022371190&wbtoolsId=2022371190&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2022371190&wbtoolsId=2022371190&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000267&serialnum=1928120166&wbtoolsId=1928120166&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1998194586&wbtoolsId=1998194586&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1998194586&wbtoolsId=1998194586&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1886180156&wbtoolsId=1886180156&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1886180156&wbtoolsId=1886180156&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1967129530&wbtoolsId=1967129530&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1967129530&wbtoolsId=1967129530&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1965125070&wbtoolsId=1965125070&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1965125070&wbtoolsId=1965125070&HistoryType=N
-
13
People, 82 Colo. 550, 567-68, 262 P. 89, 96 (1927)).
Jurisdiction over a person or
property may be acquired by various means, but, as relevant
here, in rem or quasi in rem
jurisdiction is typically obtained by seizing, attaching, or
otherwise asserting dominion
over property situated within the court’s territorial borders.4
Hoff v. Armbruster, 125
Colo. 324, 328, 244 P.2d 1069, 1071 (1952) ; see also United
States v. 51 Pieces of Real
Prop. Roswell, N.M., 17 F.3d 1306, 1309 (10th Cir. 1994) (same)
(citing Pennington v.
Fourth Nat'l Bank, 243 U.S. 269, 272 (1917)). As will be
discussed at further length
below, while “valid seizure of the res is a prerequisite to the
initiation of an in rem civil
forfeiture proceeding,” continuing possession of the property is
not necessary to
maintain jurisdiction over an in rem forfeiture action. Republic
Nat'l Bank of Miami v.
United States, 506 U.S. 80, 84, 85 (1992) (emphasis in
original).
The authority of Colorado courts to entertain and resolve civil
forfeiture claims
– that is to say, their subject matter jurisdiction over this
class of cases – emanates
from the Abatement of Public Nuisance Act. See § 16-13-307(1),
C.R.S . (2012);
People v. Grell, 950 P.2d 660, 662 (Colo. App. 1997) (holding
that forfeiture action
is commenced, and jurisdiction of court is invoked, by filing
complaint in accordance
with section 16-13-307(5), C.R.S . (2012)); see also Associated
Governments of Nw.
4 Because personal jurisdiction extends to both persons and
property, it is sometimes generically referred to as “territorial
jurisdiction.” FleetBoston Financial Corp. v.
FleetBostonFinancial.com, 138 F.Supp.2d 121, 129 (D. Mass.
2001).
http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000267&serialnum=1952112380&wbtoolsId=1952112380&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000267&serialnum=1952112380&wbtoolsId=1952112380&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000267&serialnum=1952112380&wbtoolsId=1952112380&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000506&serialnum=1994055626&wbtoolsId=1994055626&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1917100305&wbtoolsId=1917100305&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1917100305&wbtoolsId=1917100305&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1992213102&wbtoolsId=1992213102&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1992213102&wbtoolsId=1992213102&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1997175738&wbtoolsId=1997175738&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1997175738&wbtoolsId=1997175738&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2027542400&wbtoolsId=2027542400&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004637&serialnum=2001305713&wbtoolsId=2001305713&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004637&serialnum=2001305713&wbtoolsId=2001305713&HistoryType=N
-
14
Colorado v. Colorado Pub. Utilities Comm'n, 27