Court: Child porn suspect should have been advised of rights
5-2 vote upholds excluding statements
Colorado Springs police should have warned a child pornography suspect that he had the right to remain silent as he sat handcuffed in the back of a police van, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled today in a split decision.
By a 5-2 vote, the court upheld 4th Judicial District Judge Gilbert Martinez’ decision to exclude from evidence statements Aaron Bradley Holt gave to a detective during a 25-minute taped conversation while police searched Holt’s apartment.
Holt was one of 15 people arrested last June during a month-long multi-agency sweep of child pornography suspects in the Pikes Peak region dubbed “Operation Peerless Summer.” The raids targeted suspects who used peer-to-peer computer networks to store and swap illegal images and videos, police said.
In the majority opinion, the court ruled that “the defendant had every reason to believe he would be arrested” after 6-9 officers entered his home with guns drawn shouting “Police! We have a search warrant! Open the door!”
One officer carried a battering ram. Several wore body armor. A sergeant who handcuffed Holt said it was for safety reasons and that he was not under arrest, police said. However, Holt’s fiancée, who had let the officers in, was not handcuffed.
Holt admitted to the detective that there was child pornography on his computer. He said he started looking at pornography as a child and that he knew the images were illegal and disgusting.
In writing the majority opinion, Justice Michel L. Bender said that it was clear Holt was the subject of a serious felony investigation.
No one told Holt he was free to leave. The fact that he was separated from his fiancée and interviewed in a “non-neutral” setting as the back of a police van indicated he was in custody the entire time. Thus he should have been advised – as he was later – that he had the right to a lawyer and the right to remain silent, Bender wrote.
Justices Nathan B. Coats and Alison Hartwell Eid dissented from the decision. Coats wrote that the majority “continues to misunderstand, or at least misapply, the governing federal law” on what constitutes police custody of a suspect.
Kathleen Walsh, a spokeswoman for the 4th Judicial District Attorney’s office, said prosecutors will review the decision. They have 14 days to decide whether to ask for a rehearing, she said.
For more court coverage, visit “The Sidebar” blog at gazette.com
