Colorado § 44-3-906 - Warrants - searches and seizures.

§ 44-3-906. Warrants - searches and seizures.

(1) If any person makes an affidavit before the judge of any county or district court stating that he or she has reason to and does believe that alcohol beverages are being sold, bartered, exchanged, divided, or unlawfully given away, or kept for such purposes, or carried in violation of this article 3 and article 4 of this title 44 within the jurisdiction of such court, and describing in the affidavit the premises, wagon, automobile, truck, vehicle, contrivance, thing, or device to be searched, the judge of the court shall issue a warrant to any officer, which the complainant may designate, having power to serve original process commanding the officer to search the premises (other than a home), wagon, automobile, truck, vehicle, contrivance, thing, or device described in the affidavit.

(2) The warrant shall be substantially as follows:

STATE OF COLORADO

) ss.

County of.................................................

The People of the State of Colorado to..........................................................

​​​ Greeting:

​​​ Whereas, there has been filed with the undersigned an affidavit of which the following is a copy:

(Here copy of affidavit)

​​​ Therefore you are hereby commanded, in the name of the people of the State of Colorado, forthwith, together with the necessary and proper assistance to enter into .......................................................

............................................................................................................................

(Here describe place mentioned in the affidavit)

of the said ........ situated in the county of ........ aforesaid and there diligently search for the said alcohol beverages and that you bring the same or any part thereof found in such search, together with such vessels in which such beverages are found and the implements and furniture used in connection therewith, and the wagon, automobile, truck, vehicle, contrivance, thing, or device in which carried, forthwith before me, to be disposed of and dealt with according to law.

​​​ Given under my hand and seal this ........ day of ........, ...... ............................................

Judge of the ................ Court

(3) The officer charged with the execution of the warrant, when necessary to obtain entrance or when entrance has been refused, may break open any premises (other than a home), wagon, automobile, truck, vehicle, contrivance, thing, or device that by said warrant the officer is directed to search and may execute said warrant any hour of the day or night.

Source: L. 2018: Entire article added with relocations, (HB 18-1025), ch. 152, p. 1063, § 2, effective October 1.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 12-47-905 as it existed prior to 2018.

ANNOTATION

Annotator's note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this section.

There must be strict compliance with any law which provides for its own enforcement by means of search, seizure, and disposition of or forfeiture of property. People ex rel. Protective Fin. Corp. v. Kinnison, 94 Colo. 350, 30 P.2d 249 (1934).

Proceedings for issuance of a search warrant must be in strict conformity with the statute, and every constitutional and statutory requirement must be observed. People ex rel. Protective Fin. Corp. v. Kinnison, 94 Colo. 350, 30 P.2d 249 (1934).

In proceeding under a search warrant there must be a strict compliance with formalities required by statute. People ex rel. Protective Fin. Corp. v. Kinnison, 94 Colo. 350, 30 P.2d 249 (1934).

If the search is illegal the seizure will also be illegal. People ex rel. Protective Fin. Corp. v. Kinnison, 94 Colo. 350, 30 P.2d 249 (1934).

Every officer making an unconstitutional search or advising or conniving at such conduct, is in violation of the law. Massantonio v. People, 77 Colo. 392, 236 P. 1019 (1925).

Consent vitiates illegality. A defendant in a prosecution under the prohibition act, who has consented to a search of his premises, cannot thereafter complain that he was deprived of his constitutional protection against such a search, and intoxicating liquor found in the search and what defendant said regarding it, are admissible in evidence. Smuk v. People, 72 Colo. 97, 209 P. 636 (1922).