Video: State Bill Colorado
In this video, Justice Nancy Rice voices concern that, using the logic of the Amalia’s warrant, sheriffs could get a warrant for all businesses in Weld County, or even for all tax returns held by the IRS. Richard Barkley, a Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck attorney for two Weld County officials, said that could legally happen.
By Matt Masich, STATE BILL COLORADO
DENVER — A search of a Greeley tax preparation firm was not unreasonable because warrants allow officers to search an entire location, an attorney for Weld County DA Ken Buck and Sheriff John Cooke argued today at the Colorado Supreme Court.
The case is Cerrillo v. Buck.
In April, District Judge James Hiatt found that Buck and Cooke had used an unlawfully broad search warrant to seize 5,000 tax returns from Amalia’s Translation and Tax Service, and that those returns could not be used to prosecute 1,300 illegal immigration cases that stemmed from the search. The search was prompted by a report of a single person suspected of using a false identity.
Richard Barkley, an attorney with Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck representing the county officials, argued that securing a warrant to search Amalia’s allowed the DA to obtain not just the suspected identity thief’s file, but all others within the premises.
Justices Gregory Hobbs and Nancy Rice seemed concerned that, using the logic of the Amalia’s warrant, sheriffs could get a warrant for all businesses in Weld County, or even for all tax returns held by the IRS. Barkley said hypothetically that if the IRS did have a repository containing all Weld County residents’ tax returns located within the county, the DA would be able to get a warrant to search those for possible illegal activity.
The ACLU cooperating attorney, Liz Harris of Jacobs Chase Frick Kleinkopf & Kelley, representing Amalia’s argued the warrant was a “classic fishing expedition.” Harris compared searching all the files in Amalia’s to searching all the apartments in a complex when there is only probable cause to search one apartment.
STATE BILL COLORADO
The highest courts in Colorado are poised to move for three years into space that’s being vacated by Colorado’s largest newspaper at 101 W. Colfax Ave.
Just months after the State Court Administrator’s Office moved into fifth-floor space abandoned by the shuttered Rocky Mountain News comes news that the Colorado Supreme Court and the Colorado Court of Appeals are in final discussions to temporarily move into space being vacated by The Post on the building’s eighth floor.
The news broke — where else? — in The Denver Post.
“We are in final contract discussions for that space,” Rob McCallum, spokesman for the Colorado Judicial Branch, confirmed to the newspaper. Besides taking over the eighth floor, the courts will also convert never-used retail space on the ground floor into a courtroom and a law library.
Like most U.S. newspapers, the Post has reported steep circulation losses in recent years. For the most recent six months, Sunday Denver Post circulation declined by 5.8 percent, Saturday circulation by 5.7 percent and Monday through Friday by 8.3 percent, the official monitor of newspaper circulation said.
Construction on a new building for Colorado’s courts system begins next year at the block at 14th Street and Broadway that currently houses the appellate courts and the Colorado History Museum.
In related coverage:
* You can see what the state court administrator’s office did with the News’ newsroom by clicking here. You can also read the lease agreements there.
* You can read an interview with the new judicial-center architect by clicking here.
The Denver Post columnist writes, “In a 4-3 decision last week, they overturned two lower court rulings and declared that, henceforth, unelected judges rather than elected legislators will determine how much money Colorado taxpayers must spend on K-12 education. The victorious plaintiffs in the case included the usual suspects: the teachers union and other educratic organizations.”
LAW WEEK COLORADO
The Colorado Supreme Court will decide whether Amendment 54, “The Clean Government Act,” is constitutional.
Passed as a ballot initiative in 2008, Amendment 54 bans political donations from people who have received sole-source government contracts. A group of nonprofit leaders filed a lawsuit in Denver District Court contesting the amendment’s constitutionality, arguing it violated the right to free speech.
On July 17, Judge Catherine Lemon granted a preliminary injunction that stopped the amendment from taking effect until an appellate court ruled on it. On Aug. 21, the Colorado Supreme Court agreed to review the case.
