An Adams County judge wrongly allowed evidence from an unconstitutional search in a man’s trial, prompting Colorado’s second-highest court to overturn the drug conviction last month.

Jurors convicted Thomas Sandoval of one count of drug possession, after a Thornton police officer discovered a small container of methamphetamine during a pat-down search for weapons. Sandoval appealed, arguing there was neither probable cause to arrest him nor reasonable suspicion to search him and the container.

A three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals agreed the circumstances leading up to the pat-down, the appearance of the container and the officer’s general awareness of crimes in the area did not justify the warrantless search.

“The officer’s contact with Sandoval arose in the course of a routine traffic stop, not as a result of information that Sandoval was involved in criminal activity,” wrote Judge Elizabeth L. Harris in the panel’s Jan. 11 opinion.

In October 2017, Officer Joshua Parker pulled over a car at 1 a.m. for having an expired registration. Because a different officer had stopped the car days prior, Parker decided to tow the vehicle.

Sandoval was the passenger and his wife was the driver. In speaking with them, Parker noticed:

• They both wore black Carhartt overalls and gloves

• They said they were on their way to work cleaning buildings, but could not say which buildings

• There was a bag of tools, including bolt cutters, in the back of the car

Parker was also aware there had been reports of burglary and trespassing in the area, but none that night.

He asked Sandoval and his wife to exit the car in anticipation of the tow and patted them down for weapons. A small container fell out of Sandoval’s pants. Parker opened it and saw what he believed to be methamphetamine. Police searched the car further and prosecutors charged Sandoval with possessing a controlled substance.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and there are limited circumstances in which police may conduct a warrantless search. The consequence of an unconstitutional search is the exclusion of the illegally obtained evidence from a defendant’s trial.

Sandoval attempted to suppress the drug evidence by arguing the pat-down and Parker’s search of the container were unjustified. Parker admitted there was “not specifically” anything to suggest Sandoval committed a crime, and something merely “felt off to me.” 

The prosecution claimed Parker, at the time of the search, believed Sandoval had committed the crime of “possession of burglary tools.” Because Sandoval was “going to be under arrest” for that offense, police would have discovered the container of drugs anyway.

District Court Judge Priscilla J. Loew concluded the bolt cutters, the clothing and the other circumstances of the traffic stop gave “the level of probable cause for the possession of burglary tools,” even though prosecutors never charged Sandoval with that offense. She declined to exclude the evidence.

On appeal, Sandoval argued Parker did not reasonably suspect he was armed and dangerous at the time he patted Sandoval down for weapons, and the circumstances did not suggest a crime was taking place beyond the initial traffic offense.

Parker “had probable cause to arrest the defendant for possession of burglary tools,” responded Senior Assistant Attorney General Erin K. Grundy. “Even if there are innocent explanations for the defendant’s all-black clothing, where the defendant was headed at 1:00 am, or why there was a bag of tools in the back seat of the car, all of those facts and circumstances together established probable cause.”

The appellate panel noted there was no evidence supporting the idea that Sandoval faced arrest for possessing burglary tools. Harris elaborated that Sandoval’s conduct may have seemed suspicious, but it did not lead to the notion that he was armed and dangerous and required a pat-down.

“The fact that crimes had previously been committed in that area adds almost nothing to the mix,” she wrote. “Here, there is no evidence that before the search, Sandoval or his wife engaged in conduct suggestive of criminal activity, other than the wife’s act of driving an uninsured and unregistered vehicle.”

Even though Sandoval and his wife could not tell Parker which buildings they were going to clean, Harris observed there was no clear indication what questions precisely Parker had asked them. Finally, Parker testified he opened the container that fell out of Sandoval’s pants because his “training and experience” led him to think it was a drug capsule. But Harris explained the container could have easily stored things other than narcotics.

The panel reversed Sandoval’s conviction.

The case is People v. Sandoval.