District Court, Huerfano County, Colorado Court Address: 401 Main St. Walsenburg, CO 81089

σ COURT USE ONLY σ

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO Plaintiff v. RALPH CANDELARIO, Defendant Douglas Wilson, Colorado State Public Defender Dariel Weaver, Reg. No. 40567 Deputy State Public Defender 134 W. Main St., Suite 32 Trinidad, CO 81082 Phone: (719) 846-9278 Fax: (719) 846-2089

Case Number: 14CR106

MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS [D-19]

Mr. Candelario, through counsel, moves to suppress any and all statements made and evidence obtained, as a result of an unlawful and unconstitutional detention and seizure. Mr. Candelario bases this request on the following grounds:

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. On Jan. 16, 2014, officers responded to the Candelario home after Mr. Candelario collapsed on the sidewalk outside of the home and a neighbor called 911. Mr. Candelario’s wife, Pam, was found deceased in the kitchen of the home.

2. After receiving medical care, including being transported via Flight for Life to Parkview Hospital in Pueblo, Mr. Candelario was interviewed extensively by agents from the Colorado Bureau of Investigations, the Walsenburg Police Department, and a polygrapher.

3. At the end of these interviews, Mr. Candelario was released and continued to live and work in Walsenburg throughout the next 10 months.

DATE FILED: April 15, 2015

4. During this time period, Mr. Candelario was frequently contacted by law enforcement. Officers contacted him to obtain waivers to search various areas and documents; officers with the Walsenburg Police Department had near-weekly interviews with Mr. Candelario, usually at his place of business.

5. On Oct. 11, 2014, officers sought and obtained a warrant for Mr. Candelario’s arrest. Contact was made with Mr. Candelario, who at that time was on vacation in California. Mr. Candelario was subsequently arrested in California, and Capt. Suarez with the Walsenburg Police Department flew to California to attempt to interview Mr. Candelario. Mr. Candelario invoked his right to counsel and declined all questioning, and Capt. Suarez returned to Walsenburg.

6. The defense anticipates that the prosecution will attempt to introduce all of Mr. Candelario’s statements to law enforcement against him at trial.

LEGAL ARGUMENT

7. The interviews with Mr. Candelario occurred while Mr. Candelario was in custody,

without a valid advisement and waiver of his rights. To determine whether a suspect was in custody, the court asks whether a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would have felt deprived of his freedom of action to the degree associated with a formal arrest. People v. Holt, 233 P.3d 1194 (Colo. 2010). In making this determination, the court is to consider, among any other factors that may be appropriate, (1) the time, place, and purpose of the encounter; (2) the persons present during the interrogation; (3) the words spoken by the officer to the defendant; (4) the officer’s tone of voice and general demeanor; (5) the length and mood of the interrogation; (6) whether any limitation of movement or other form of restraint was placed on the defendant during the interrogation; (7) the officer’s response to any questions asked by the defendant; (8) whether directions were given to the defendant during the interrogation, and (9) the defendant’s verbal or nonverbal response to such actions. People v. Hankins, 201 P.3d 1215 (Colo. 2009).

8. A warrantless arrest must be supported by probable cause, with the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish that probable cause existed. People v. Castaneda, 249 P.3d 1119 (Colo. 2011), citing People v. Washington, 865 P.2d 145 (Colo. 1994). Officers had no probable cause to arrest Mr. Candelario and interrogate him. Evidence seized or developed as a result of a warrantless arrest, including statements of the defendant, without probable cause to support the arrest, is inadmissible. Id., citing People v. Robinson, 226 P.3d 1145 (Colo. App. 2009).

1. All statements attributable to Mr. Candelario were made without a valid advisement or waiver of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966). Any advisement of rights given to Mr. Candelario at the police department was ineffective, and any waiver of his rights by Mr. Candelario was invalid. Where the validity of a Miranda advisement and waiver is challenged, the prosecution has the burden of proving the waiver’s validity, and must show that the waiver was made

knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. People v. Mejia-Mendoza, 965 P.2d 777, 780 (Colo. 1998). There is a two-step analysis for validity of a Miranda waiver: (1) whether the defendant was adequately warned of his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to counsel, and (2) whether the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived these rights. People v. Chase, 719 P.2d 718, 720 (Colo. 1986).

9. All other statements made by Mr. Candelario were similarly made while Mr. Candelario

was in custody, detained without probable cause and without a valid advisement and waiver of his Miranda rights.

10. Further, even if the court finds that Mr. Candelario was not in custody, he was still seized for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. A seizure occurs for purposes of the Fourth Amendment whenever a reasonable person would not feel free to leave or disregard the officer’s instructions. People v. Archuleta, 980 P.2d 509 (Colo. 1999); People v. Padgett, 932 P.2d 810 (Colo. 1997) (on-foot officer’s calling out to defendant second time, after defendant did not respond to first call out, constituted investigatory stop); Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (consensual encounter is negated if the police conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business).

11. An encounter that begins as a consensual encounter can, through the actions of the officers, be escalated into a seizure for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment. People v. Paynter, 955 P.2d 68 (Colo. 1998); People v. Scheffer, 224 P.3d 279 (Colo. 2009); People v. Coleman, 55 P.3d 817 (Colo. App. 2002).

12. In order to lawfully detain an individual for questioning, three criteria must be met. First, the officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed or is about to commit a crime. Second, the purpose of the detention must be reasonable. Finally, the character of the detention must be reasonable when considered in light of the purpose. Stone v. People, 485 P.2d 495 (Colo. 1971).

13. Officers had no reasonable suspicion, in any of their contacts with Mr. Candelario, that Mr. Candelario had committed or was about to commit a crime. Thus, any statements obtained as a result of these contacts is inadmissible.

14. Further, all statements made in subsequent interviews were the products of the initial, illegal arrest and interrogation, and must be suppressed as fruits of the initial illegality.

15. All statements were made in violation of Mr. Candelario’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, and all statements made were involuntary. In assessing the voluntariness of statements, the court must consider the totality of the circumstances under which the statement was made, including the mental condition of the defendant. Effland v. People, 240 P.3d 868 (Colo. 2010).

THEREFORE, Mr. Candelario requests that this Court suppress for use as evidence any

and all statements made and all evidence seized as a denial of Mr. Candelario’s rights under the

Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article II, sections 7 and 16 of the Colorado Constitution, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and Sections 16-3-101 and 16-3-401, et. seq., 8 C.R.S., and Rule 41, C.R.Crim.P.

Douglas K. Wilson Colorado State Public Defender

__ _______________ Dariel Weaver, #40567 Deputy Public Defender

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on ___4____ - __15______ - 2015 , the foregoing document was served to opposing counsel by: hand delivery mail fax ICCES

other method _email____.

____ ___________ SIGNATURE