Perez v. People
After an extended foot chase and discovery of live shotgun shells on Marcus Perez’s person, a police officer asked him about the location of a gun and Perez answered that he had thrown the gun away. After being charged with possession of a dangerous weapon by a previous offender, Perez moved to suppress his answer, arguing the statement was obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, because he was not provided Miranda warnings before the officer asked the question. Ultimately, Perez’s answer to the question was admitted at trial under the public safety exception to Miranda, and he was convicted. Perez appealed, and the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the public safety exception did not apply but that the error was harmless.
Whether the public safety exception applies turns on whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the officer’s questioning relates to an objectively reasonable need to protect the public from immediate danger, not whether the officer had “every reason to believe” that a weapon is in play. Moreover, whether an officer was aware of the existence of a potential weapon at the time of dispatch is not dispositive; the relevant time to evaluate whether there was an objectively reasonable need to protect the public is when the officer asked the question.
The Colorado Supreme Court held the public safety exception does apply and affirmed on other grounds.
People in the Interest of R.J.B.
In this dependency and neglect proceeding, R.B. appeals the juvenile court’s judgment terminating her parent-child legal relationship with R.J.B. following a remote termination hearing conducted via the Webex remote video-conference platform. Mother claims that the court should have granted her a continuance so an in-person hearing could have been held, the remote hearing didn’t afford her due process or equal protection of the law and there was a less drastic alternative to terminating her parental rights.
A division of the Colorado Court of Appeals concluded the court’s need to conduct the termination hearing via Webex didn’t establish good cause to continue the hearing. It also rejected R.B.’s assertions the remote hearing procedure failed to afford her due process and equal protection of the law. The division also ruled the juvenile court didn’t err in determining that there was no less drastic alternative to termination, so it affirmed the judgment.
People in the Interest of L.B-H-P.
In this dependency and neglect proceeding, a magistrate terminated the parent-child legal relationship between B.B. and her child, L.B-H-P. B.B sought juvenile court review of the termination order, but the juvenile court denied her request because it was untimely and B.B. appealed.
Colorado law makes clear that section 19-1-108(5.5) does not limit the juvenile court’s jurisdiction to consider a petition for review but sets forth “a procedural rule that creates a condition precedent to the party’s right to appeal the magistrate’s order.” Therefore, a juvenile court retains jurisdiction to consider a late petition for review and may do so if, in its discretion, the court finds that the delay is the result of excusable neglect.
The Colorado Court of Appeals needed to decide an unanswered question in Colorado: When does a party’s counsel’s medical condition or need for medical care constitute excusable neglect? A division of the court concluded the party must show that counsel’s condition or need for care was so disabling as to prevent counsel from filing the petition or a request for an extension of time. B.B. did not meet that standard here, so the division affirmed the judgment.