{"id":1859,"date":"2008-05-28T08:21:33","date_gmt":"2008-03-08T07:51:51","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-03-08T07:51:51","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1859","title":{"rendered":"CO: Exclusionary rule did not apply to a dependency and neglect proceeding"},"content":{"rendered":"

Exclusionary rule did not apply to a dependency and neglect proceeding which is a civil case. State, in the Interest of A.E.L. & K.C.-M., <\/a> 181 P.3d 1186 (Colo. App. 2008):<\/p>\n

Thus, whether the exclusionary rule applies in a civil case in Colorado requires the trial court to weigh the deterrent benefits of applying the rule against the societal cost of excluding relevant evidence. Id<\/em>. at 519-20. “There is no ‘bright line’ to determine when the rule should apply, and courts must apply the Janis analytic framework on a case by case basis.” Id<\/em>. at 520. The assessment requires a fact-specific analysis and usually involves two considerations: (1) whether the illegal agency conduct is “inter-sovereign” or “intra-sovereign”; and (2) whether the proceedings may be characterized as “quasi-criminal.” Id<\/em>. Evidence is not suppressed in a civil proceeding by one sovereign merely because law enforcement agents of another sovereign failed to comply with the proscriptions of the Fourth Amendment. People v. Harfmann<\/em>, 638 P.2d 745, 747 (Colo. 1981).<\/p>\n

Here, even if we assume the police violated mother’s right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and they were acting as agents of the department, mother was not charged with possession of an unlawful substance. A different entity (the City and County of Denver) was seeking to introduce the evidence at the adjudicatory hearing for a completely different purpose: to show that mother was not providing the children with a safe and suitable home.<\/p>\n

The juvenile court also concluded, and we agree, that a dependency and neglect case is not a quasi-criminal proceeding, and that the societal costs of applying the rule would exceed any deterrent effect that exclusion would have on the department or the police in investigating a child welfare issue. See State in Interest of A.R., <\/em>982 P.2d at 78-79. Accordingly, we conclude the juvenile court did not err in denying mother’s motion to suppress.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1859","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1859","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1859"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1859\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1859"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1859"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1859"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}