The Colorado Supreme Court released five opinions today. Below are the summaries of each with a link to the entire opinion.
David J. Gottorff, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Jason Lengerich and Moses Stancil, Defendants-Appellees. 2026 CO 37. In this combined opinion, the supreme court reviews two district courts’ orders, denying petitioner’s petitions for a writ of habeas corpus and ordering him to pay the filing fees associated with each petition. The court concludes that the habeas courts properly denied the petitions because petitioner raised arguments that prior courts have already reviewed and ruled on or that are more appropriately resolved in petitioner’s pending direct appeal. Therefore, the supreme court affirms the habeas courts’ denials of petitioner’s petitions for habeas relief. However, the supreme court also concludes that the habeas courts erred by determining that, under section 13-17.5-103(1), C.R.S. (2025), because the petitions were groundless, petitioner wasn’t eligible for waivers of the filing fees. Section 13-17.5-102(1), C.R.S. (2025), expressly excludes “an action for habeas corpus” from the provision prohibiting waivers for groundless petitions. Therefore, the supreme court vacates the fee-payment related portions of the habeas courts’ orders. Read the opinion.
The People of the State of Colorado, In the Interest of T.J.W., Juvenile-Appellee and Concerning L.C.W. and D.W., Respondents-Appellees. 2026 CO 38. The supreme court considers the People’s interlocutory appeal challenging a district court’s suppression order. An anonymous tip received through Colorado’s Safe2Tell program described a student smoking marijuana in class. After verifying details alleged in this tip, an assistant principal at the school searched T.J.W.’s backpack and found a marijuana vape pen which was used to charge T.J.W. with marijuana possession. T.J.W. filed a motion to suppress evidence of the marijuana vape pen which the district court granted, finding that the search was illegal.
Applying the two-part test established in New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 341 (1985), the supreme court holds that the search of T.J.W.’s backpack was “justified at its inception,” and thus reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, because the anonymous Safe2Tell tip, combined with the assistant principal’s independent corroboration, supported a finding of reasonable suspicion. Accordingly, the supreme court reverses the district court’s suppression order. Read the opinion.
The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff v. Issac James Lawrence, Defendant. 2026 CO 39. In this C.A.R. 21 proceeding, the defendant, who was charged as an adult for crimes committed when he was a minor and who was initially held in the custody of the Division of Youth Services (“DYS”), asserts that the district court unlawfully and unconstitutionally ordered that he be transferred from DYS custody to a county jail when he turned eighteen years old.
The supreme court concludes that, under the plain and unambiguous language of section 19-2.5-305(4)(g), C.R.S. (2025), of the Children’s Code, the defendant was properly transferred from DYS custody to the county jail when he turned eighteen. The court further concludes that the defendant’s right to equal protection of the laws was not violated by the transfer because, contrary to his assertions, he was not similarly situated to another defendant who was allowed to remain in DYS custody. Accordingly, the court discharges its order to show cause and remands this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Read the opinion.
Progressive Direct Insurance Company, Petitioner v. Andrew Ortiz, Respondent. 2026 CO 40. The supreme court granted certiorari to review whether it should reconsider its decision in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Brekke, 105 P.3d 177 (Colo. 2004). There, the supreme court held that to provide a court with the information necessary to determine a uninsured motorist (“UM”) insurer’s level of participation in tort litigation between its insured and an uninsured motorist, a UM insurer must plead with particularity the legitimate defenses it intends to raise as soon as practicable. Id. at 192 & n.20, 193.
With one minor clarification regarding C.R.C.P. 8 and C.R.C.P. 9(b), the supreme court declines to overrule Brekke. Instead, the court concludes that Brekke’s guiding principles stand. To provide a court with the information needed to timely determine a UM insurer’s appropriate level of participation in tort litigation between its insured and an uninsured motorist, an insurer must – as soon as practicable – plead its legitimate defenses specifically. Rule 9(b) does not apply unless a UM insurer asserts fraud or mistake as a legitimate defense.
Because the UM insurer in this case failed to meet Brekke’s requirements, the supreme court concludes that the district court did not abuse its discretion in barring the UM insurer from contesting liability in the tort litigation between its insured and an uninsured motorist. The district court appropriately balanced the interests of the parties and provided the insurer with the opportunity for a fair hearing on its legitimate defenses. Accordingly, the supreme court affirms the judgment of the court of appeals. Read the opinion.
The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Troy J. Baker, Defendant-Appellee. 2026 CO 41. In this C.A.R. 4.1 interlocutory appeal, the supreme court reverses the district court’s order suppressing evidence from a protective sweep and search of the vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger. The court concludes that the officers acted within the bounds of both the United States and Colorado Constitutions: the protective sweep was justified by officer-safety concerns, and the vehicle search fell within the automobile exception. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings. Read the opinion.