For the second time in three months, the Colorado Supreme Court has agreed one state trooper working in Mesa County conducted an unlawful search of a vehicle in his attempt to apprehend drug traffickers.

Colorado State Patrol Trooper Christian Bollen pulled over a rental Jeep on Interstate 70 for an allegedly unsafe lane change. The traffic stop led to a search of the vehicle, where police uncovered narcotics. But a Mesa County judge determined Bollen did not have reasonable suspicion of improper driving in the first place, making all of the evidence resulting from the stop unusable in court.

In a pair of decisions on Monday, the Supreme Court agreed suppression of the evidence was warranted in the criminal cases of Eduardo Barrera, the driver, and Isaiah Deaner, the passenger.

“Trooper Bollen did not have an objectively reasonable belief that Barrera committed a traffic violation. Therefore, Trooper Bollen did not have a reasonable suspicion to conduct the traffic stop. It follows that any search that resulted from the traffic stop was unlawful,” wrote Chief Justice Brian D. Boatright in the Sept. 26 opinions.

Bollen’s actions were the subject of another Supreme Court decision in June, in which Bollen insisted on searching an out-of-state rental vehicle even though a drug detection dog indicated no contraband was present. Although Bollen was ultimately correct about the presence of drugs in the vehicle, the Supreme Court observed Bollen’s probable cause was based on a series of hunches that ignored contrary evidence from the drug-sniffing dog.

“The probable cause standard doesn’t consider only those facts that are favorable to law enforcement,” wrote Justice Carlos A. Samour Jr. at the time, in a case whose details roughly paralleled those of Barrera and Deaner.

In April 2021, Bollen followed a rented Jeep with an Arizona license plate eastbound on I-70. Bollen had more than 350 hours of drug interdiction training and had been involved in approximately 100 cases, and he testified the circumstances suggested drug smuggling activity.

The Jeep was in the right lane and Bollen drove close behind in the left. Suddenly, a disabled vehicle and law enforcement vehicle with emergency lights activated appeared on the right shoulder. Bollen slowed down in response.

Barrera turned on his left turn signal, in accordance with state law requiring drivers to move over for emergency vehicles, and Bollen braked his own car. The Jeep then switched lanes in front of Bollen. Another vehicle in the vicinity did not switch lanes when passing the cars on the shoulder, but Bollen ignored it.

Instead, Bollen sped up to the Jeep and pulled it over. He told Barrera the Jeep had “cut me off” and said “you just gotta have a lot more space.”

Bollen invited Barrera to his vehicle and questioned him about his trip. Other officers were simultaneously speaking with Deaner. After learning the two men’s answers had discrepancies, Bollen believed he had probable cause to search the Jeep. The search uncovered narcotics and prosecutors charged Barrera and Deaner.

The defendants argued Bollen had conducted the traffic stop without reasonable suspicion of a crime, in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. Bollen testified he pulled over the Jeep because it violated the “three-second rule,” a guideline found in Colorado’s driver manual that advises cars to follow three seconds behind another vehicle, relative to a fixed object. State law does not mention the three-second rule.

District Court Judge Valerie J. Robison, after viewing video footage from Bollen’s vehicle, agreed the Jeep had safely changed lanes while complying with the requirement to move over for emergency vehicles. She ordered the drug evidence suppressed from the illegal traffic stop.

The Mesa County District Attorney’s Office, exercising its option to appeal a suppression decision directly to the Supreme Court, argued that even if there was no traffic violation, the law was ambiguous and Bollen’s interpretation was “objectively reasonable.”

Boatright, in the Supreme Court’s opinion, noted state law only requires drivers to ascertain a lane change can be “made with safety.” Although the Jeep was, in fact, less than three seconds in front of Bollen’s vehicle, the justices rejected the idea Colorado’s driver manual should have much – if any – significance in a criminal prosecution.

Barrera “moved the SUV from the right lane to the left lane without incident, and because the Trooper slowed down, the SUV quickly increased distance between the two cars,” Boatright wrote. Therefore, the evidence supported the defense’s argument Barrera had changed lanes with safety.

While not responding directly to questions about Bollen’s pattern of unlawful searches, a spokesperson for the Colorado State Patrol said the agency monitors court cases and provides training as needed to comply with rulings.

“Trooper Bollen, like every trooper, will meet Colorado court-defined expectations by following current and future Colorado State Patrol training and processes. Formal disciplinary action has not been taken at this time,” Trooper Josh K. Lewis said on Tuesday.

Earlier this month, The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel’s editors raised concerns over “a serious culture and leadership problem” within the state patrol unit stationed in Fruita, specifically warning against unlawful traffic stops.

The cases are People v. Barrera and People v. Deaner.

Editor’s note: This article has been updated with a statement from the Colorado State Patrol.