SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO Ralph L. Carr Judicial Center 2 East 14th Avenue Denver, CO 80203

▲ COURT USE ONLY ▲

On Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals Case No. 10CA1805

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO Petitioner, v. $11,200.00 U.S. CURRENCY and BRADLEY EDWARD STRAND. Respondent.

MARK G. WALTA, #30990 Walta LLC 1544 Race Street Denver, CO 80206 (303) 953-5999 (Telephone) (303) 321-7781 (Fax) mwalta@wghd-law.com (Email)

Case Number: 11SC813

ANSWER BRIEF

mailto:mwalta@wghd-law.com

ii

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO Ralph L. Carr Judicial Center 2 East 14th Avenue Denver, CO 80203

Name of Lower Court(s): Colorado Court of Appeals

Case Number(s): 10CA1805

Petitioner: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO v. Respondents: $11,200.00 U.S CURRENCY, BRADLEY EDWARD STRAND, ET AL.

∆ COURT USE ONLY ∆

Attorney: MARK G. WALTA, #30990 Walta LLC 1544 Race Street Denver, CO 80206 (303) 953-5999 (Telephone) (303) 321-7781 (Fax) mwalta@wghd-law.com (Email)

Case Number: 11SC813

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I hereby certify that this brief complies with all requirements of C.A.R. 28 and C.A.R. 32 , including all formatting requirements set forth in these rules. Specifically, the undersigned certifies that: The brief complies with C.A.R. 28(g) .

Choose one:

√ It contains 9,497 words. The brief complies with C.A.R. 28(k) .

√ For the party responding to the issue: It contains, under a separate heading, a statement of whether such party agrees with the opponent’s statements concerning the standard of review and preservation for appeal, and if not, why not.

s/ Mark G. Walta, #30990

Signature of attorney

mailto:mwalta@wghd-law.comhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005372&DocName=COSTACTR28&wbtoolsId=COSTACTR28&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005372&DocName=COSTACTR28&wbtoolsId=COSTACTR28&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005372&DocName=COSTACTR32&wbtoolsId=COSTACTR32&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005372&DocName=COSTACTR32&wbtoolsId=COSTACTR32&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005372&DocName=COSTACTR28&wbtoolsId=COSTACTR28&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005372&DocName=COSTACTR28&wbtoolsId=COSTACTR28&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005372&DocName=COSTACTR28&wbtoolsId=COSTACTR28&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005372&DocName=COSTACTR28&wbtoolsId=COSTACTR28&HistoryType=C

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ISSUES ANNOUNCED BY THE COURT.......................................................... 1 COMBINED STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND THE FACTS .................. 2 1. The Parallel Criminal Action ............................................................... 2 2. The Civil Forfeiture Action ................................................................. 3 3. The Direct Appeal of the Conviction and Resulting Dismissal ..... 6 4. The Motion for Relief from Judgment .............................................. 7 5. The Court of Appeals’ Opinion ......................................................... 8 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ...................................................................... 9 ARGUMENT

I. THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT LOSE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IN THIS IN REM FORFEITURE PROCEEDING WHEN IT DISTRIBUTED THE PERSONAL PROPERTY, $11,200, PURSUANT TO ITS UNAPPEALED FINAL ORDER. ………...…………… ............................................................................................... 11 1. Standard of Review………. .............................................................. 11 2. The Merits………………. ............................................................... 11

A. Any Alleged Defect In The Trial Court’s Jurisdiction Implicates Questions Of Personal – Not Subject Matter – Jurisdiction.………………………………………………...…..11

B. Defects In Personal Jurisdiction Are Waivable, And The District

Attorney Has Waived Its Jurisdictional Arguments By Failing To Timely Raise Them Below……………………………………..14

C. Even If The Prosecution’s Jurisdictional Complaints Are Properly

Before The Court, They Fail As A Matter Of Law.………………………………………….………………...16

ii

D. The Fact That Mr. Strand Did Not Appeal From, And Seek A Stay Of, The Forfeiture Order Is Of No Consequence, As Defendant: (1) Was Not Required To Take Such Action; And, (2) In Any Event, Would Have Been Estopped From Challenging The Legality Of The Seizure Of The Subject Currency.…..........……………...…………………....………….19

II. SECTION 16-13-307(1.6), C.R.S . (2011), PROVIDES AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF FROM AN UNAPPEALED FINAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE WHEN A CLAIMANT’S CRIMINAL CONVICTION IS OVERTURNED ON APPEAL. ………...…………… ............................................................................................... 24 1. Standard of Review………. .............................................................. 24 a. Waiver……………………………………….. ............................. 24 b. De Novo…………………………………. .................................. 25 2. The Merits………………. ............................................................... 25

A. Section 16-13-307(1.6) Is Susceptible To Differing Interpretations.………………………………………………...27

B. To The Extent There Is Ambiguity In Section 16-13-307(1.6)’s

Remedial Provision, The Rule Of Lenity Requires That The Ambiguities Be Resolved In Mr. Strand’s Favor ………………………….……………………………………..31

III. CONSISTENT WITH THIS COURT’S PRONOUNCEMENTS IN AHART v. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 964 P.2D 517, 520 (COLO. 1998) , AND WITH DECISIONS OF NUMEROUS OTHER COURTS, THE COURT OF APPEALS PROPERLY CONCLUDED THAT THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE APPLIES TO CIVIL FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS. ………...…………… ............................................................................................... 32 1. Standard of Review………. .............................................................. 32 a. Waiver……………………………………….. ............................. 32 b. De Novo…………………………………. .................................. 33 2. The Merits………………. ............................................................... 33

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1998194586&wbtoolsId=1998194586&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1998194586&wbtoolsId=1998194586&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1998194586&wbtoolsId=1998194586&HistoryType=N

iii

IV. THE COURT OF APPEALS PROPERLY CONCLUDED THAT THE CIVIL FORFEITURE JUDGMENT WAS “BASED ON” THE RELATED CRIMINAL CONVICTION FOR PURPOSES OF C.R.C.P. 60(B)(4) . ………...…………… ............................................................................................... 38 1. Standard of Review………. .............................................................. 38 a. Abuse of Discretion……………………………………….. ...... 38 b. De Novo…………………………………. .................................. 38 2. The Merits………………. ............................................................... 38 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 42 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .............................................................................. 43

TABLE OF CASES

Ahart v. Colorado Dept. of Corrections, Div. of Adult Services, 964 P.2d 517 (Colo. 1998) ............................................................................................ 12 n.3, 35, 36 n.13

Allen v. Steele, 252 P.3d 476 (Colo. 2011) ................................................... 19-20

Associated Governments of Nw. Colorado v. Colorado Pub. Utilities Comm'n, 275 P.3d 646 (Colo. 2012) .................................................................................................. 13-14

Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993) ..................................................... 12

Benton v. Adams, 56 P.3d 81 (Colo. 2002) ............................................... 39 n.15

Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) .................................................. 12 n.3

Centennial Bank of the W. v. Taylor, 143 P.3d 1140 (Colo. App. 2006) ........... 22

City of Omaha v. Savard-Henson, 615 N.W.2d 497 (Neb. App. 2000) ..................... ................................................................................................................ 34-35, 36 n.13

City of Walla Walla v. $401,333.44, 262 P.3d 1239 (Wash. App. 2011) ............ 14

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005387&DocName=COSTRCPR60&wbtoolsId=COSTRCPR60&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005387&DocName=COSTRCPR60&wbtoolsId=COSTRCPR60&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005387&DocName=COSTRCPR60&wbtoolsId=COSTRCPR60&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1998194586&wbtoolsId=1998194586&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1998194586&wbtoolsId=1998194586&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1998194586&wbtoolsId=1998194586&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2025255696&wbtoolsId=2025255696&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2025255696&wbtoolsId=2025255696&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2027542400&wbtoolsId=2027542400&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2027542400&wbtoolsId=2027542400&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1993130661&wbtoolsId=1993130661&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1993130661&wbtoolsId=1993130661&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2002650291&wbtoolsId=2002650291&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2002650291&wbtoolsId=2002650291&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1886180156&wbtoolsId=1886180156&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1886180156&wbtoolsId=1886180156&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2009696406&wbtoolsId=2009696406&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2009696406&wbtoolsId=2009696406&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000595&serialnum=2000464859&wbtoolsId=2000464859&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2026285996&wbtoolsId=2026285996&HistoryType=F

iv

Colorado Water Conservation Bd. v. Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy Dist.,

109 P.3d 585 (Colo. 2005) .................................................................................... 30

Com. v. Dennis, 695 A.2d 409 (Pa. 1997) .............................................................. 16

Com. v. Perez, 941 A.2d 778 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) ................................................ 14

Craven v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 117 P.3d 11 (Colo. App. 2004) .............................................................................................................................. 12 n.3

Davidson v. McClellan, 16 P.3d 233 (Colo. 2001) .............................................. 23

E.B. Jones Const. Co. v. City & County of Denver, 717 P.2d 1009 (Colo. App. 1986) ........................................................................................................................ 22

Ex parte Linnell, 484 So. 2d 455 (Ala. 1986) ........................................................ 16

Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Benzing, 206 P.3d 812 (Colo. 2009) ............................. 16

Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259 (1984) .................................................. 24

FleetBoston Financial Corp. v. FleetBostonFinancial.com, 138 F.Supp.2d 121 (D. Mass. 2001) .......................................................................................................... 13 n.4 Francen v. Colorado Dept. of Revenue, Div. of Motor Vehicles, -- P.3d --, 2012 COA 110 (Colo. App. July 5, 2012) .......................................................................... 36 n.12

Fugere v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 103, (1990), aff'd, 972 F.2d 331 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ................................................................................................................................ ..................................................................................................................................... 24 Garcia v. Schneider Energy Services, Inc., 287 P.3d 112 (Colo. 2012) ......................... 37

Gerrish v. Barnes, 844 P.2d 315 (Utah 1992) ........................................................ 16

Goodman Associates, LLC v. WP Mountain Properties, LLC, 222 P.3d 310 (Colo. 2010) ........................................................................................................................ 37

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2006341118&wbtoolsId=2006341118&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2006341118&wbtoolsId=2006341118&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2006341118&wbtoolsId=2006341118&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000162&serialnum=1997121175&wbtoolsId=1997121175&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000162&serialnum=2014959621&wbtoolsId=2014959621&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2004229223&wbtoolsId=2004229223&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2004229223&wbtoolsId=2004229223&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2001080342&wbtoolsId=2001080342&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2001080342&wbtoolsId=2001080342&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1986118668&wbtoolsId=1986118668&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1986118668&wbtoolsId=1986118668&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1986118668&wbtoolsId=1986118668&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000735&serialnum=1986112877&wbtoolsId=1986112877&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2018681524&wbtoolsId=2018681524&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2018681524&wbtoolsId=2018681524&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1984108877&wbtoolsId=1984108877&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1984108877&wbtoolsId=1984108877&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004637&serialnum=2001305713&wbtoolsId=2001305713&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004637&serialnum=2001305713&wbtoolsId=2001305713&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000463&serialnum=1991135809&wbtoolsId=1991135809&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000350&serialnum=1992142301&wbtoolsId=1992142301&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000350&serialnum=1992142301&wbtoolsId=1992142301&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2028965342&wbtoolsId=2028965342&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1992219644&wbtoolsId=1992219644&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2021079025&wbtoolsId=2021079025&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2021079025&wbtoolsId=2021079025&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2021079025&wbtoolsId=2021079025&HistoryType=F

v

Hendricks v. People, 10 P.3d 1231 (Colo. 2000) ................................................ 25

Hoff v. Armbruster, 125 Colo. 324, 244 P.2d 1069 (1952) ............................... 13

In re B.B.O., 277 P.3d 818 (Colo. 2012) ............................................................... 25

In re Forfeiture of Fourteen Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Nine Dollars ($14,639) in

U.S. Currency in Various Denominations & Two (2) Digital Pagers, 902 P.2d 563 (N.M. App. 1995) ...................................................................................................... 21

In re Forfeiture of $180,975, 734 N.W.2d 489 (Mich. 2007) .......................... 33, 34

In re Racing Services, Inc., 571 F.3d 729 (8th Cir. 2009) ........................................ 39

INS v. Lopez–Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984) ..................................................... 34

Isham v. People, 82 Colo. 550, 262 P. 89 (1927) ............................................. 12-13

Livera v. First Nat'l State Bank, 879 F.2d 1186 (3d Cir. 1989)............................ 40

Lubben v. Selective Serv. Sys. Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645 (1st Cir. 1972) .. 40

Manzanares v. City of Albuquerque, 628 F.3d 1237 (10th Cir. 2010) ................... 39

Miller v. Toler, 729 S.E.2d 137 (W.Va. 2012) .............................................. 35 n.12

Mora v. United States, 955 F.2d 156 (2d Cir. 1992) ....................................... 17 n.6

O'Donnell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 186 P.3d 46 (Colo. 2008) ... 19 n.8

One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693 (1965) .............. 12 n.3, 34

One 1995 Corvette VIN# 1G1YY22P585103433 v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 724 A.2d 680 (Md. 1999) ............................................... 34, 35 & n.11, 36

Pennington v. Fourth Nat'l Bank, 243 U.S. 269 (1917) .......................................... 13

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2000515288&wbtoolsId=2000515288&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2000515288&wbtoolsId=2000515288&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000267&serialnum=1952112380&wbtoolsId=1952112380&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000267&serialnum=1952112380&wbtoolsId=1952112380&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2027808298&wbtoolsId=2027808298&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1995177892&wbtoolsId=1995177892&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1995177892&wbtoolsId=1995177892&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1995177892&wbtoolsId=1995177892&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000595&serialnum=2012608037&wbtoolsId=2012608037&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000506&serialnum=2019263049&wbtoolsId=2019263049&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1984132651&wbtoolsId=1984132651&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000267&serialnum=1928120166&wbtoolsId=1928120166&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000350&serialnum=1989108042&wbtoolsId=1989108042&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000350&serialnum=1972107886&wbtoolsId=1972107886&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000350&serialnum=1972107886&wbtoolsId=1972107886&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000506&serialnum=2024099919&wbtoolsId=2024099919&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000711&serialnum=2027869236&wbtoolsId=2027869236&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000350&serialnum=1992033144&wbtoolsId=1992033144&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2016270466&wbtoolsId=2016270466&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2016270466&wbtoolsId=2016270466&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1965125070&wbtoolsId=1965125070&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000162&serialnum=1999061841&wbtoolsId=1999061841&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000162&serialnum=1999061841&wbtoolsId=1999061841&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1917100305&wbtoolsId=1917100305&HistoryType=N

vi

People v. Casias, -- P.3d --, 2012 COA 117 (Colo. App. July 19, 2012) .......... 24, 33

People v. Cerrone, 780 P.2d 562 (Colo. App. 1989) ........................................... 31

People v. Elvin L. Gentry, P.C., 107 P.3d 1094 (Colo. App. 2004) .................. 30

People ex rel. A.E.L., 181 P.3d 1186 (Colo. App. 2008) ........................ 36 n.14

People v. $11,200.00 U.S. Currency, -- P.3d --, 2011 WL 3612233 (Colo. App. Aug. 18, 2011) ................................................................................................. 9, 17, 19

People v. Garner, 732 P.2d 1194 (Colo. 1987) ................................................... 12

People v. Grell, 950 P.2d 660 (Colo. App. 1997) ............................................... 13

People v. Guthrie, 286 P.3d 530 (Colo. 2012) .................................................. 33-34

People in Interest of Clinton, 762 P.2d 1381 (Colo. 1988) .................................. 14

People v. Lot 23, 735 P.2d 184 (Colo. 1987) ..................................................... 12

People v. Maser, 278 P.3d 361 (Colo. 2012) .......................................................... 11

People v. Mershon, 874 P.2d 1025 (Colo. 1994) ........................................... 15, 33

People v. Milton, 732 P.2d 1199 (Colo. 1987) .................................................... 12

People v. Morley, 4 P.3d 1078 (Colo. 2000) ........................................................ 33

People v. One 1968 Chevrolet 2-Door VIN: 1123378L310864, 895 P.2d 1177 (Colo. App. 1995) .................................................................................................. 27

People v. One 1988 Mazda 323, VIN JM1BF232XJ0131664, 857 P.2d 569 (Colo. App. 1993) .................................................................................................. 31

People ex rel. Sandstrom v. District Court, 884 P.2d 707 (Colo. 1994) ..... 40 n.16

People v. Summers, 208 P.3d 251 (Colo. 2009) .................................................. 31

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1989113700&wbtoolsId=1989113700&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1989113700&wbtoolsId=1989113700&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2005513772&wbtoolsId=2005513772&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2005513772&wbtoolsId=2005513772&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2015412496&wbtoolsId=2015412496&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2015412496&wbtoolsId=2015412496&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000999&serialnum=2025900461&wbtoolsId=2025900461&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000999&serialnum=2025900461&wbtoolsId=2025900461&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1987023654&wbtoolsId=1987023654&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1987023654&wbtoolsId=1987023654&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1997175738&wbtoolsId=1997175738&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1997175738&wbtoolsId=1997175738&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2028749017&wbtoolsId=2028749017&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1988131411&wbtoolsId=1988131411&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1988131411&wbtoolsId=1988131411&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1987047320&wbtoolsId=1987047320&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1987047320&wbtoolsId=1987047320&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2027837947&wbtoolsId=2027837947&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1994088584&wbtoolsId=1994088584&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1994088584&wbtoolsId=1994088584&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1987023647&wbtoolsId=1987023647&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1987023647&wbtoolsId=1987023647&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2000387326&wbtoolsId=2000387326&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2000387326&wbtoolsId=2000387326&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1995093531&wbtoolsId=1995093531&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1995093531&wbtoolsId=1995093531&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1995093531&wbtoolsId=1995093531&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1993136083&wbtoolsId=1993136083&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1993136083&wbtoolsId=1993136083&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1993136083&wbtoolsId=1993136083&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1994229212&wbtoolsId=1994229212&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1994229212&wbtoolsId=1994229212&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2018906769&wbtoolsId=2018906769&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2018906769&wbtoolsId=2018906769&HistoryType=N

vii

People v. Thirty-three Thousand Two Hundred and Twelve Dollars, 83 P.3d 1206

(Colo. App. 2003) .................................................................................................. 25

People v. Thoro Products Co., Inc., 70 P.3d 1188 (Colo. 2003) ........................... 31

People v. Wilson, 251 P.3d 507 (Colo. App. 2010) ............................................ 12

Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc. v. Porsche.net, 302 F.3d 248 (4th Cir. 2002) .......... 14, 15

Republic Nat'l Bank of Miami v. United States, 506 U.S. 80 (1992) .......... 13, 18, 21

Sanctuary House, Inc. v. Krause, 177 P.3d 1256 (Colo. 2008) ............................ 12

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. McMillan, 925 P.2d 785 (Colo. 1996) ......... 22

State v. Catlett, 945 P.2d 700 (Wash. 1997) .......................................................... 36

State v. One 1990 Chevrolet Corvette VIN: 1G1YY3388L5111488, 695 A.2d 502 (R.I. 1997) ................................................................................................................... 36

United States v. Aiello, 912 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1990) .......................................... 18 n.7

United States v. Chambers, 192 F.3d 374 (3d Cir. 1999) ................................ 17 n.6

United States v. Duenas, 691 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2012) ....................................... 33 United States v. 51 Pieces of Real Prop. Roswell, N.M., 17 F.3d 1306 (10th Cir. 1994) .................................................................................................................. 13, 18 n.7, 37

United States v. $46,588.00 in U.S. Currency and $20.00 in Canadian Currency, 103 F.3d 902 (9th Cir. 1996) ............................................................................................. 17

United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 (1976) ......................................................... 34

United States v. Marrocco, 578 F.3d 627 (7th Cir. 2009) ....................................... 34

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2003937404&wbtoolsId=2003937404&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2003937404&wbtoolsId=2003937404&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2003937404&wbtoolsId=2003937404&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2003358551&wbtoolsId=2003358551&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2003358551&wbtoolsId=2003358551&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2022371190&wbtoolsId=2022371190&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2022371190&wbtoolsId=2022371190&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000506&serialnum=2002540578&wbtoolsId=2002540578&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1992213102&wbtoolsId=1992213102&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2015382539&wbtoolsId=2015382539&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2015382539&wbtoolsId=2015382539&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1996240815&wbtoolsId=1996240815&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1996240815&wbtoolsId=1996240815&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1997208490&wbtoolsId=1997208490&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000162&serialnum=1997127603&wbtoolsId=1997127603&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000162&serialnum=1997127603&wbtoolsId=1997127603&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000350&serialnum=1990118802&wbtoolsId=1990118802&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000506&serialnum=1999209751&wbtoolsId=1999209751&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000506&serialnum=2028417627&wbtoolsId=2028417627&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000506&serialnum=1994055626&wbtoolsId=1994055626&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000506&serialnum=1994055626&wbtoolsId=1994055626&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000506&serialnum=1996281307&wbtoolsId=1996281307&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000506&serialnum=1996281307&wbtoolsId=1996281307&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1976142453&wbtoolsId=1976142453&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1976142453&wbtoolsId=1976142453&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000506&serialnum=2019662865&wbtoolsId=2019662865&HistoryType=F

viii

United States v. $95,945.18, U.S. Currency, 913 F.2d 1106 (4th Cir. 1990) ....17, 20

United States v. One Lear Jet Aircraft, Serial No. 35A-280, Registration No. YN-BVO, 836 F.2d 1571 (11th Cir. 1988) ..................................................................... 17

United States v. Premises & Real Prop. at 4492 S. Livonia Rd., Livonia, N.Y., 889 F.2d 1258 (2d Cir. 1989) ........................................................................................... 37

United States v. $2,490.00 in U.S. Currency, 825 F.2d 1419 (9th Cir. 1987) ....... 20

United States v. One Lot of $25,721.00 in Currency, 938 F.2d 1417 (1st Cir. 1991) . ........................................................................................................................ 18 n.7, 20

United States v. One 1973 Rolls Royce, V.I.N. SRH-16266, 43 F.3d 794 (3d Cir. 1994) ............................................................................................................................ 31

United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891 (1975) ............................................................ 16

United States v. Real Property Located At 265 Falcon Road, 2010 WL 104660 (S.D. Ill. 2010) (unpublished) ............................................................................................. 34

United States v. Tit's Cocktail Lounge, 873 F.2d 141 (7th Cir. 1989) .................... 20

United States v. Twelve Thousand, Three Hundred Ninety Dollars ($12,390.00), 956 F.2d 801 (8th Cir. 1992) ............................................................................................. 17

United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (1996) ............................................. 35 n.11

United States v. Wilkinson, 686 P.2d 790 (Colo. 1984) ......................................... 29 U.S Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967) .............................................. 12 n.3

Vensor v. People, 151 P.3d 1274 (Colo. 2007) ................................................... 25

Ventura Packers, Inc. v. F/V JEANINE KATHLEEN, 424 F.3d 852 (9th Cir. 2005) ..................................................................................................................... 18 n.7

Walker v. City of Denver, 720 P.2d 619 (Colo. App. 1986) .............................. 31

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000350&serialnum=1990132544&wbtoolsId=1990132544&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000350&serialnum=1988013999&wbtoolsId=1988013999&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000350&serialnum=1988013999&wbtoolsId=1988013999&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000350&serialnum=1989165826&wbtoolsId=1989165826&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000350&serialnum=1989165826&wbtoolsId=1989165826&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000350&serialnum=1987106621&wbtoolsId=1987106621&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000350&serialnum=1991125704&wbtoolsId=1991125704&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000506&serialnum=1994234394&wbtoolsId=1994234394&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000506&serialnum=1994234394&wbtoolsId=1994234394&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1975129842&wbtoolsId=1975129842&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000999&serialnum=2021074397&wbtoolsId=2021074397&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000999&serialnum=2021074397&wbtoolsId=2021074397&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000350&serialnum=1989065134&wbtoolsId=1989065134&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000350&serialnum=1992038002&wbtoolsId=1992038002&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000350&serialnum=1992038002&wbtoolsId=1992038002&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1996140015&wbtoolsId=1996140015&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1996140015&wbtoolsId=1996140015&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1984141315&wbtoolsId=1984141315&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1967129530&wbtoolsId=1967129530&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1967129530&wbtoolsId=1967129530&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2011371688&wbtoolsId=2011371688&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2011371688&wbtoolsId=2011371688&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000506&serialnum=2007305089&wbtoolsId=2007305089&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000506&serialnum=2007305089&wbtoolsId=2007305089&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1986112032&wbtoolsId=1986112032&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1986112032&wbtoolsId=1986112032&HistoryType=C

ix

TABLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS United States Constitution Amendment IV………………………………………………………33 Colorado Constitution Article II, §7……………………………………………………...........33

TABLE OF STATUTES AND RULES Colorado Revised Statutes Section 16-13-302, C.R.S . (2010) .......................................................... 29 Section 16-13-302, C.R.S . (2010) .......................................................... 27 Section 16-13-307, C.R.S . (2012) ................................................. passim Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) ……………………………………………39 n.15 Colorado Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 8………………………………………………………………19 Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60 ............................................................................................. passim Rule 62 ............................................................................................................. 19

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-302&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-302&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-302&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-302&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-302&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-302&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-302&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-302&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000600&DocName=USFRCPR60&wbtoolsId=USFRCPR60&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000600&DocName=USFRCPR60&wbtoolsId=USFRCPR60&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000600&DocName=USFRCPR60&wbtoolsId=USFRCPR60&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000600&DocName=USFRCPR60&wbtoolsId=USFRCPR60&HistoryType=C

1

ISSUES ANNOUNCED BY THE COURT

I. Whether the trial court lost subject matter jurisdiction in the in rem forfeiture

proceeding when it distributed the personal property, $11,200, pursuant to its

unappealed final order.

II. Whether section 16-13-307(1.6), C.R.S . (2011), provides affirmative relief

from an unappealed final order of forfeiture when a claimant’s criminal conviction is

overturned on appeal.

III. Whether, contrary to this court’s holding in Ahart v. Colorado Department of

Corrections, 964 P.2d 517, 520 (Colo. 1998) , the court of appeals erred in holding that

the exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture proceedings without conducting an

analysis in this case utilizing the enumerated two-part balancing test.

IV. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that, for purposes of C.R.C.P.

60(b)(4) , the civil forfeiture judgment was “based on” the related criminal

conviction when the civil forfeiture judgment was attained through a separate and full

hearing on the merits, evidence of the criminal conviction was only one piece of

evidence submitted at the hearing, and a criminal conviction is not required for a civil

forfeiture judgment.

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1998194586&wbtoolsId=1998194586&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1998194586&wbtoolsId=1998194586&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1998194586&wbtoolsId=1998194586&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005387&DocName=COSTRCPR60&wbtoolsId=COSTRCPR60&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005387&DocName=COSTRCPR60&wbtoolsId=COSTRCPR60&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005387&DocName=COSTRCPR60&wbtoolsId=COSTRCPR60&HistoryType=C

2

COMBINED STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND THE FACTS

This case involves the forfeiture of $11,200.00 in U.S. Currency illegally seized

pursuant to a stale warrant. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s considered

judgment that the government must return the currency to Mr. Strand.

1. The Parallel Criminal Action

On January 30, 2004, investigators arranged for a confidential informant – Mr.

Strand’s disgruntled ex-girlfriend – to make a controlled drug-purchase from him. (v.

I: 5; Tr. 6/9/06: 32, 103-05, 108, 134, 138). Although police did not witness the

transaction, the informant nevertheless returned with a quantity of drugs that she

claimed had been supplied by defendant. (v. I: 5; Tr. 6/9/06: 32-33, 62).

A warrant authorizing a search of Mr. Strand’s residence was subsequently

approved on February 2, 2004. (v. I: 5; Tr. 6/9/06: 35). Nine days later, authorities

executed the warrant and conducted a search of both Mr. Strand’s house and a truck

parked outside. (v. I: 6; Tr. 6/9/06: 35-36). Various items were seized in the course

of the search, including bundles of currency containing some of the marked bills used

in the earlier drug-buy. (v. I: 6; Tr. 6/9/06: 36-37, 39-40, 53-54, 78-81, 86-87).

Police arrested Mr. Strand, and he submitted to a custodial interview. (v. I: 6-7;

Tr. 6/9/06: 40). The detective who conducted the interview claimed that Mr. Strand

3

eventually admitted to possessing and selling drugs.1 (v. I: 6-7; Tr. 6/9/06: 40-41, 42-

43). Mr. Strand vigorously disputed this. (Tr. 6/9/06: 63-64, 73-74, 144-46).

On February 12, 2004, the prosecution charged Mr. Strand for allegedly

distributing and possessing methamphetamine. (v. I: 2, 7).

Prior to trial, Mr. Strand filed motions seeking to suppress the items seized in

the course of the search. The district court ordered suppression of some of the

evidence, but otherwise denied the motions. (E-File: 46-47).

The case ultimately proceeded to trial and, on January 14, 2005, a jury returned

verdicts of guilty. (Envelope II: Plaintiff’s Ex. 1). The trial court adjudicated Mr.

Strand an habitual criminal on July 14, 2005, and proceeded to sentence him to

concurrent terms of 64 and 24 years in the Department of Corrections. (Id.)

Mr. Strand appealed from the judgment of conviction.

2. The Civil Forfeiture Action

On April 8, 2004, the district attorney commenced a forfeiture action against

the currency at issue here, pursuant to the Abatement of Public Nuisance Act (“the

Act” or “the statute”), §§ 16-13-301 through - 316, C.R.S . (2012). (v. I: 1-8).

These proceedings were stayed during the pendency of the parallel criminal case, in

accordance with section 16-13-307(1.5), C.R.S . (2012). ( Id. at 22-24 ). After

1 No audio or video recording of the interview exists. (Tr. 6/9/06: 70-71, 72).

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-301&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-301&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-301&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-301&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-316&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-316&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-316&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-316&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&cite=117PC3D22&wbtoolsId=2004229223&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&cite=117PC3D22&wbtoolsId=2004229223&HistoryType=C

4

the conclusion of the criminal case, the district attorney took action to reinitiate

forfeiture proceedings. ( Id. at 38-40 ).

Trial counsel in the criminal matter filed an Answer to the forfeiture Complaint

on Mr. Strand’s behalf. (E-File: 107-11). Mr. Strand generally denied the allegations,

and furthermore asserted a variety of affirmative defenses to the forfeiture claim,

including the defense that the subject property had been illegally seized from his

residence. ( Id. at 107-08). The trial court permitted counsel to withdraw after filing

the Answer. (Id. at 112-18).

Mr. Strand, who, by this time, had commenced serving his prison sentence in

the parallel criminal action, represented himself throughout the remainder of the

proceedings. (Tr. 6/9/06: 5-7, 18-21). Although defendant filed numerous pro se

motions seeking the release or return of the subject currency, he did not expressly

argue for return of the currency on grounds that it had been unlawfully seized. (v. I:

25-29, 92-96, 112-22, 151-57; E-File: 1-7).

The trial court conducted a hearing on the merits on June 9, 2006. (Tr.

6/9/06: 3-166). The district attorney sought to prove up the public nuisance and

forfeiture claim by introducing the following evidence:

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&cite=117PC3D38&wbtoolsId=2004229223&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&cite=117PC3D38&wbtoolsId=2004229223&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000463&serialnum=1991135809&wbtoolsId=1991135809&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2028965342&wbtoolsId=2028965342&HistoryType=F

5

• official court documents and testimony establishing that

Mr. Strand suffered convictions in the parallel criminal action,

(Envelope: Plaintiff’s Ex. 1; Tr. 6/9/06: 44); and,

• testimony and other evidence concerning the subject

currency and other contraband seized in the course of the search

conducted on February 11, 2004. (Tr. 6/9/06: 36-42, 45-49, 78-

81, 86-87).

On June 10, 2006, the trial court issued an order entering judgment against Mr.

Strand and the subject currency. (v. I: 79-83). The court found in pertinent part that:

• Mr. Strand’s convictions in the parallel criminal action

constituted Class 1 public nuisances, ( Id. at 82); and,

• the commission of these public nuisance acts warranted

forfeiture of the subject property. ( Id. at 82-83).

On July 14, 2006, the trial court entered an order directing that the forfeited

proceeds be placed on the district court registry and made available for distribution.

(v. I: 85, 169). The currency was thereafter deposited with the district court and

distributed in accordance with section 16-13-311(3), C.R.S . (2012). (v. I: 131-45,

150, 159-60).

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1992213102&wbtoolsId=1992213102&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1992213102&wbtoolsId=1992213102&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-311&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-311&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-311&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-311&HistoryType=N

6

Mr. Strand filed various pro se objections to the court’s forfeiture and

distribution orders, all of which were overruled. (v. I: 86-88, 92-101, 112-25, 128-29,

151-57, 163-64). Although Mr. Strand did not appeal directly from the trial court’s

order, he did repeatedly petition the court to delay the distribution of the seized

currency and to set aside the order of forfeiture.2 ( Id. at 86-88, 93-97, 112-22, 151-

57).

3. The Direct Appeal of the Conviction and the Resulting Dismissal

On February 26, 2009, approximately two-and-a-half years after the order of

forfeiture entered, a division of the court of appeals reversed the judgment imposed in

the parallel criminal action, on grounds that the search performed on February 11,

2004, was conducted pursuant to a stale warrant, and was therefore unconstitutional.

(E-File: 43-64).

The Attorney General elected not to seek further review in this Court, and, on

May 5, 2009, the court of appeals’ Mandate issued. (E-File: 65).

The prosecution took no action to reinitiate criminal proceedings within the

time-limits prescribed by section 18-1-405(2), C.R.S . (2012), and Mr. Strand’s

public defender promptly moved to dismiss the case on speedy trial grounds. The

2 Indeed, Mr. Strand implored the court at the hearing on the merits not to dispose of the subject currency while his appeal in the criminal case remained pending. (Tr. 6/9/06: 162, 164).

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1992213102&wbtoolsId=1992213102&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1992213102&wbtoolsId=1992213102&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS18-1-405&wbtoolsId=COSTS18-1-405&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS18-1-405&wbtoolsId=COSTS18-1-405&HistoryType=C

7

prosecution responded to defendant’s motion with its own motion to dismiss, and on

November 25, 2009, the district court entered an order dismissing the case. (E-File:

66-67).

4. The Motion for Relief from Judgment

On February 11, 2010, roughly three months after his conviction in the parallel

criminal action had been dismissed, and more than three-and-a-half years after entry

of the forfeiture order, Mr. Strand filed a “Motion For Relief From Judgment

Pursuant To C.R.C.P. 60(B) And Request For Return Of Forfeited Property In

Accordance With Section 16-13-307(1.6), C.R.S . (2009), Crim. P. 41(E)(5) ,

And The United States And Colorado Constitutions.” (E-File: 13-67).

The prosecution objected to Mr. Strand’s motion on grounds that it had not

been made within “a reasonable time,” and that the relief sought was either barred by

the equitable doctrine of laches or was otherwise unavailable under section 16-13-

307(1.6) . (E-File: 68-69). While the district attorney took the position that Mr.

Strand could not recover funds that had already been distributed and spent, he

nevertheless conceded that Mr. Strand was probably entitled to receive whatever

portion of the forfeited proceeds remained on the court’s registry. ( Id. at 69 ).

Mr. Strand filed a written response addressing these objections. ( Id. at 72-

76 ).

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005387&DocName=COSTRCPR60&wbtoolsId=COSTRCPR60&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005387&DocName=COSTRCPR60&wbtoolsId=COSTRCPR60&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005376&DocName=COSTRCRPR41&wbtoolsId=COSTRCRPR41&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005376&DocName=COSTRCRPR41&wbtoolsId=COSTRCRPR41&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&cite=186PC3D69&wbtoolsId=2016270466&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&cite=186PC3D69&wbtoolsId=2016270466&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&cite=186PC3D72&wbtoolsId=2016270466&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&cite=186PC3D72&wbtoolsId=2016270466&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&cite=186PC3D72&wbtoolsId=2016270466&HistoryType=C

8

The trial court ordered that the matter be set for a hearing, and, on May 11,

2010, the parties appeared for argument on the motions. (E-File: 123; Tr. 5/11.10: 3-

20).

On July 23, 2010, the court issued a written order granting the relief requested,

reasoning that:

Mr. Strand’s motion pursuant to C.R.C.P. 60(b) was

brought within “a reasonable time,” (E-File: 86-87);

the validity of the forfeiture order was fatally undermined by

the admission of unconstitutionally seized evidence and by the

subsequent dismissal of the criminal case that served as the

basis for the forfeiture, ( Id. at 84-86); and,

the dismissal of the parallel criminal action required the return

of the forfeited currency pursuant to section 16-13-

307(1.6) . ( Id. at 85-86).

This appeal followed.

5. The Court of Appeals’ Opinion

The court of appeals unanimously affirmed trial court’s order granting relief,

concluding that:

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005387&DocName=COSTRCPR60&wbtoolsId=COSTRCPR60&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005387&DocName=COSTRCPR60&wbtoolsId=COSTRCPR60&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1992213102&wbtoolsId=1992213102&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1992213102&wbtoolsId=1992213102&HistoryType=N

9

under the particular circumstances of this case, defendant’s

C.R.C.P. 60 motion must be considered reasonably timely;

the suppression of evidence seized in the parallel criminal

case was relevant to, and provided a basis for relief from the

judgment in, the civil forfeiture action;

Mr. Strand’s post-trial motion was properly made pursuant

to C.R.C.P. 60(b)(4) ; and,

section 16-13-307(1.6) granted the trial court the

authority to order the return of the subject currency, even though

it had already been distributed and spent.

People v. $11,200.00 U.S. Currency, -- P.3d --, 2011 WL 3612233, **2-3 (Colo. App.

Aug. 18, 2011).

The district attorney sought, and this Court granted, a writ of certiorari to

review the court of appeals’ judgment.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

I. The prosecution’s jurisdictional argument has been waived. In either event,

the argument fails on its merits. Most courts – following the lead of the United States

Supreme Court – recognize that continuing possession of the subject property is not

necessary to maintain jurisdiction over an in rem forfeiture action. Additionally, the

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005387&DocName=COSTRCPR60&wbtoolsId=COSTRCPR60&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005387&DocName=COSTRCPR60&wbtoolsId=COSTRCPR60&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005387&DocName=COSTRCPR60&wbtoolsId=COSTRCPR60&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005387&DocName=COSTRCPR60&wbtoolsId=COSTRCPR60&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyCite/default.wl?rs=kmkh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&cite=COSTS16-13-307&kmDocName=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=N&FindType=Y&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyCite/default.wl?rs=kmkh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&cite=COSTS16-13-307&kmDocName=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=N&FindType=Y&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000999&serialnum=2025900461&wbtoolsId=2025900461&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000999&serialnum=2025900461&wbtoolsId=2025900461&HistoryType=N

10

fact that the forfeiture order was not appealed is of no consequence, as Mr. Strand

was collaterally estopped from challenging the legality of the seizure of the subject

property.

II. The prosecution’s arguments concerning the proper interpretation of section

16-13-307(1.6), C.R.S . (2012), were not properly presented below, and therefore

have been waived. Regardless, section 16-13-307(1.6) is reasonably susceptible to

differing interpretations, and the rule of lenity requires that the ambiguities in the

statute be construed in Mr. Strand’s favor.

III. The prosecution’s arguments concerning the applicability of the exclusionary

rule to civil forfeiture proceedings were not properly presented below, and therefore

have been waived. Even if the Court were to reach these arguments, it would have

little trouble concluding that the court of appeals, consistent with the position taken

by the majority of courts, properly determined that exclusionary rule applies to civil

forfeiture actions.

IV. The trial court properly concluded, and the court of appeals correctly affirmed,

that the forfeiture order in this case was “based on” the judgment in the parallel

criminal case ultimately reversed on appeal, and that C.R.C.P. 60(b)(4) therefore

provided an appropriate vehicle for seeking relief from the forfeiture order.

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005387&DocName=COSTRCPR60&wbtoolsId=COSTRCPR60&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1005387&DocName=COSTRCPR60&wbtoolsId=COSTRCPR60&HistoryType=C

11

ARGUMENT

I. THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT LOSE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IN THIS IN REM FORFEITURE PROCEEDING WHEN IT DISTRIBUTED THE PERSONAL PROPERTY, $11,200, PURSUANT TO ITS UNAPPEALED FINAL ORDER. 1. Standard of Review

Jurisdiction is a question of law, which this Court reviews de novo. People v.

Maser, 278 P.3d 361, 364 (Colo. 2012).

2. The Merits Mr. Strand asserts that: (A) the alleged defect in the trial court’s jurisdiction

implicates issues relative to personal – not subject matter – jurisdiction; (B) any

putative defect has been waived as a result of the prosecution’s failure to properly

raise the issue below; (C) even if the issue is properly before the Court, the prevailing

view is that removal or transfer of the res does not terminate the in rem jurisdiction of

the court; and, (D) the fact that Mr. Strand did not appeal the order of forfeiture is of

no consequence, as he would have been collaterally estopped from challenging the

legality of the seizure of the currency on direct appeal.

A. Any Alleged Defect In The Trial Court’s Jurisdiction Implicates Questions Of Personal – Not Subject Matter – Jurisdiction.

The question presented for the Court’s review appears premised on the notion

that the transfer, disposal, loss, or destruction of the property – or the res – at the

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2027837947&wbtoolsId=2027837947&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2027837947&wbtoolsId=2027837947&HistoryType=F

12

center of an in rem civil forfeiture action necessarily implicates a trial court’s subject

matter jurisdiction. Answer Br. at 13-18. The premise is fundamentally flawed.

Although the Abatement of Public Nuisance statute is housed within Title 16,

Article 13 of the criminal code, forfeiture actions brought pursuant to its provisions

traditionally have been characterized as civil in rem proceedings.3 People v. Lot 23,

735 P.2d 184, 189 n.2 (Colo. 1987); People v. Milton, 732 P.2d 1199, 1204 (Colo.

1987) . This characterization proceeds from the fiction that the res is essentially the

“offender” in forfeiture actions. People v. Garner, 732 P.2d 1194, 1196 (Colo.

1987) ; accord Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 615-16 (1993) (collecting

cases).

It is axiomatic that a court's jurisdiction consists of two elements: jurisdiction

over the subject matter (subject matter jurisdiction) and jurisdiction over the parties

and property before it (personal, in rem, or quasi in rem jurisdiction). E.g., Sanctuary

House, Inc. v. Krause, 177 P.3d 1256, 1258 (Colo. 2008) .

Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by the constitution and laws of the

state. People v. Wilson, 251 P.3d 507, 508 (Colo. App. 2010) (citing Isham v.

3 At the same time, however, courts have determined that such proceedings are “quasi-criminal” in nature. Ahart v. Colorado Dept. of Corrections, 964 P.2d 517, 520 & n.3 (Colo. 1998); see also Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 634 (1886) , overruled on other grounds, Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967) ; One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693, 701 (1965).

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1987047320&wbtoolsId=1987047320&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1987047320&wbtoolsId=1987047320&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1987047320&wbtoolsId=1987047320&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1987023647&wbtoolsId=1987023647&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1987023647&wbtoolsId=1987023647&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1987023647&wbtoolsId=1987023647&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1987023654&wbtoolsId=1987023654&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1987023654&wbtoolsId=1987023654&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1987023654&wbtoolsId=1987023654&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1993130661&wbtoolsId=1993130661&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1993130661&wbtoolsId=1993130661&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2015382539&wbtoolsId=2015382539&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2015382539&wbtoolsId=2015382539&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2015382539&wbtoolsId=2015382539&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2022371190&wbtoolsId=2022371190&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2022371190&wbtoolsId=2022371190&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000267&serialnum=1928120166&wbtoolsId=1928120166&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1998194586&wbtoolsId=1998194586&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1998194586&wbtoolsId=1998194586&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1886180156&wbtoolsId=1886180156&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1886180156&wbtoolsId=1886180156&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1967129530&wbtoolsId=1967129530&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1967129530&wbtoolsId=1967129530&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1965125070&wbtoolsId=1965125070&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1965125070&wbtoolsId=1965125070&HistoryType=N

13

People, 82 Colo. 550, 567-68, 262 P. 89, 96 (1927)). Jurisdiction over a person or

property may be acquired by various means, but, as relevant here, in rem or quasi in rem

jurisdiction is typically obtained by seizing, attaching, or otherwise asserting dominion

over property situated within the court’s territorial borders.4 Hoff v. Armbruster, 125

Colo. 324, 328, 244 P.2d 1069, 1071 (1952) ; see also United States v. 51 Pieces of Real

Prop. Roswell, N.M., 17 F.3d 1306, 1309 (10th Cir. 1994) (same) (citing Pennington v.

Fourth Nat'l Bank, 243 U.S. 269, 272 (1917)). As will be discussed at further length

below, while “valid seizure of the res is a prerequisite to the initiation of an in rem civil

forfeiture proceeding,” continuing possession of the property is not necessary to

maintain jurisdiction over an in rem forfeiture action. Republic Nat'l Bank of Miami v.

United States, 506 U.S. 80, 84, 85 (1992) (emphasis in original).

The authority of Colorado courts to entertain and resolve civil forfeiture claims

– that is to say, their subject matter jurisdiction over this class of cases – emanates

from the Abatement of Public Nuisance Act. See § 16-13-307(1), C.R.S . (2012);

People v. Grell, 950 P.2d 660, 662 (Colo. App. 1997) (holding that forfeiture action

is commenced, and jurisdiction of court is invoked, by filing complaint in accordance

with section 16-13-307(5), C.R.S . (2012)); see also Associated Governments of Nw.

4 Because personal jurisdiction extends to both persons and property, it is sometimes generically referred to as “territorial jurisdiction.” FleetBoston Financial Corp. v. FleetBostonFinancial.com, 138 F.Supp.2d 121, 129 (D. Mass. 2001).

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000267&serialnum=1952112380&wbtoolsId=1952112380&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000267&serialnum=1952112380&wbtoolsId=1952112380&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000267&serialnum=1952112380&wbtoolsId=1952112380&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000506&serialnum=1994055626&wbtoolsId=1994055626&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1917100305&wbtoolsId=1917100305&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1917100305&wbtoolsId=1917100305&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1992213102&wbtoolsId=1992213102&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000780&serialnum=1992213102&wbtoolsId=1992213102&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1997175738&wbtoolsId=1997175738&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0000661&serialnum=1997175738&wbtoolsId=1997175738&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=L&DB=1000517&DocName=COSTS16-13-307&wbtoolsId=COSTS16-13-307&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004645&serialnum=2027542400&wbtoolsId=2027542400&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004637&serialnum=2001305713&wbtoolsId=2001305713&HistoryType=Nhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/default.wl?rs=kmfh4.8&vr=2.0&kmvr=2.6&FindType=Y&DB=0004637&serialnum=2001305713&wbtoolsId=2001305713&HistoryType=N

14

Colorado v. Colorado Pub. Utilities Comm'n, 27