Opinion
No. 24988.
Decided February 8, 1971.
Interlocutory appeal from a denial of a motion to suppress evidence.
Ruling Affirmed.
1. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES — Consent to Search — Automobile — Glove Compartment — Hashish — Denial of Motion to Suppress — Proper. Where trial court found that defendant consented to warrantless search of his automobile by two officers — one of whom testified that he told defendant that he could refuse permission to search — who found some "hashish," a narcotic drug, in glove compartment of car, and that he freely let them do so, held, since record reflects competent evidence to support conclusion that defendant consented to the search denial of his motion to suppress the evidence was proper.
Interlocutory Appeal from the District Court of Larimer County, Honorable Dale E. Shannon, Judge.
David L. Wood, District Attorney, L. Duane Woodard, Deputy, for plaintiff-appellee.
Rollie Rogers, State Public Defender, Don L. Nelson, Deputy, for defendant-appellant.
This is an interlocutory appeal from a denial of a motion to suppress evidence. We affirm.
The parties have argued at some length the contentions of the defendant that under the circumstances a search warrant was required and that, in the absence of a search warrant, this was not a search incident to a lawful arrest. We need not give attention to these arguments, as the trial court determined that the defendant consented to the search and we find that competent evidence supported the conclusion. Two officers testified that in advance of the search they asked the defendant if they might search his automobile and that the defendant consented. One of the officers testified that he told the defendant that he could refuse permission to search.
The testimony of the defendant was that he merely permitted them to "look" in the car and that he did not consent to them looking in the glove compartment, where the officers found some "hashish," a narcotic drug.
[1] In making its ruling with respect to consent, the trial court followed Capps v. People, 162 Colo. 323, 426 P.2d 189 (1967). The court found that the defendant consented to the search and that under the totality of all the circumstances he acted intelligently, knowing that he did not have to let them search his car, and that he freely let them do so.
The court, in effect, found that the true version of the matter was given by the police officers. Our study of the record discloses that there was ample testimony to support the court's findings and that the case falls within the ambit of Capps and Phillips v. People, 170 Colo. 520, 462 P.2d 594 (1969).
Ruling affirmed.