With prosecutors and the defense in rare agreement, the Colorado Supreme Court honored their request and determined on Monday that trial court judges have the authority to return someone’s illegally-seized property after charges against them are dropped.

Although the rules of criminal procedure allow someone to seek the return of property that police confiscate without a warrant or probable cause, that has to happen prior to or during a trial. It was unclear what happens if prosecutors drop the charges and there is no trial.

Both the Colorado Attorney General’s Office and a lawyer for Mark A. Strepka believed lower court judges have at least 49 days – the time window for filing an appeal – to consider returning property to the defendant.

“With respect to that issue, we conclude that the People and Strepka both got it right,” wrote Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter in the Court’s June 21 opinion.

Police arrested Strepka during a traffic stop after finding narcotics, firearms, a firearm case and ammunition inside his vehicle. Prosecutors charged him with drug possession and possession of a weapon by a prior offender. However, a Denver judge determined officers lacked reasonable suspicion to investigate beyond the initial traffic stop, and prosecutors dropped the charges.

Twenty-one days later, Strepka asked the court to return his guns, ammunition and case. The judge agreed to the return of everything but the firearms, and Strepka appealed her decision. A three-judge panel for the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled instead that the district court judge lost jurisdiction to handle Strepka’s request at the time the prosecution dismissed charges.

The Supreme Court’s decision reversed the appellate panel. At oral argument in May, Strepka’s attorney indicated his client would be satisfied with such an outcome, but encouraged the justices to be mindful of circumstances in which the 49-day appeal window may not be enough time to file a motion to return seized property.

“It is certainly possible that somebody might not even know the government had taken their property until a couple months out from when the case has been dismissed,” said Deputy State Public Defender Mark Evans. “And that person should not have to file a separate civil lawsuit when there’s a rule expressly allowing them to [file a motion] and to get their property back.”

The case is Strepka v. People.