People v. Galvadon
Colorado Supreme Court
103 P.3d 923 (2005)
- Written by Paul Neel, JD
Facts
Carlos Galvadon (defendant) worked as the night manager of a liquor store. The store’s owner was the only other employee. Galvadon performed his work duties from the store’s back room. The back room was located behind the store’s refrigerator and accessed by a narrow hallway. The back room contained inventory, a small office, and a restroom. Only Galvadon and the owner had unrestricted access to the back room. The back room was monitored by a video-surveillance camera. During one of Galvadon’s shifts, two men left the store and were standing in the parking lot when one of the men was sprayed with pepper spray by a stranger. A police officer pulled up to check on the injured man’s condition. The two men and the officer entered the store to use the restroom and wash the pepper spray from the injured man’s face. Galvadon stated that no one was permitted in the back room. The two men and the officer entered the back room anyway. While the injured man washed his face, more officers arrived. One of the officers noticed a brick of marijuana in an open box in the back room. Another brick was found in a bag on the restroom floor. The owner arrived and consented to a search of the store. A third brick was found in the back room. The state (plaintiff) charged Galvadon with possession with intent to distribute. The trial court denied Galvadon’s motion to suppress the evidence as the result of an illegal search. Galvadon was convicted and appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Martinez, J.)
Dissent (Mullarkey, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.