CO: In a civil case, legal justification for a warrantless search is an affirmative defense

“In a case of first impression, a division of the court of appeals holds that legal justification for a warrantless search is an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove in a civil action under section 13-21-131, C.R.S. 2025. The division also holds that the trial court properly limited expert testimony and properly excluded evidence of a gun found during the protective sweep. Finally, the division holds that the trial court’s award of attorney fees [$130,987] and costs to the plaintiff was reasonable, and it remands the case for the trial court to determine the plaintiff’s reasonable appellate attorney fees.”–Syllabus. Mosley v. Daves, 2025 COA 80 (Oct. 2, 2025).

“Based on a totality of the circumstances, Officer Ruffin had probable cause to believe Marion’s flight from police was indicative of criminal activity and that the car, which police already knew contained an assault-styled rifle, likely contained evidence of that criminal activity. In sum, the search of Marion’s car did not violate the Fourth Amendment because it fell within the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.” United States v. Marion, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196334 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 3, 2025).*

Standing doesn’t have to be decided, and both defendants likely have it. On the merits, the stop and detention were with reasonable suspicion. United States v. Thengkamp, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196367 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 29, 2025).*

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Burden of pleading, Burden of proof, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.