CO: When defendant doesn’t file a motion to suppress, the trial court’s sustaining the search can’t be appealed

Defendant agreed at the trial court that there was no suppression issue, and the trial court found the search legal. Just because the trial court sustained the search, the defendant waived any challenge to the search by agreeing in the trial court. People v. Cordova, 293 P.3d 114 (Colo. App. 2011):

At trial, defendant did not contend that the search violated the Constitution. Nor did he direct the court to the applicable constitutional considerations or explain how those principles should be applied to the evidence the prosecution presented. To the contrary, defense counsel told the court there was “no reason to suppress” the knives based on an improper search. Thus, although the court ruled that the vehicle search and the seizure of the knives were proper, it did so without the benefit of a complete record and argument addressing the specific issues defendant now raises.

Therefore, we reject defendant’s contentions that the court’s ruling preserved the issue and that we should review that ruling for constitutional harmless error. Instead, we conclude that defendant waived the legality of the search and that the court’s ruling did not negate that waiver. Accordingly, we decline to address the legality of the search.

[posted 10/23]