The Colorado Supreme Court rebuffed a district attorney’s office on Monday for immediately pursuing an appeal of a trial judge’s evidentiary decision that the court had no authority to hear.

State law authorizes prosecutors to file a mid-case, or “interlocutory,” appeal to the Supreme Court when a judge suppresses key evidence from being used in trial. After a February hearing in which a Logan County judge excluded evidence based on the actions of law enforcement, the DA filed an interlocutory appeal.

The defendant, Collin Schneider, stands accused of vehicular eluding and reckless driving. Based on Sterling police officers’ failure to activate their body-worn cameras in accordance with state law, the defense moved to exclude certain testimony by the officers.

Chief Judge Carl S. McGuire III granted the motion. While the prosecution and the defense both appeared to argue on appeal that McGuire relied on the officers’ violation of departmental policy in reaching his decision, the Supreme Court characterized his ruling as based on state law.

Crucially for the appeal, the DA’s office contended that McGuire erred in “suppressing” the evidence. But the Supreme Court concluded that no suppression had occurred.

The unsigned May 4 opinion repeatedly cited a decision the court issued last month, finding El Paso County prosecutors wrongly pursued an interlocutory appeal after a trial judge declined to allow unedited or irrelevant video evidence to be played in its entirety. The judge’s actions did not amount to suppression of evidence, the court found.

“The word ‘suppress’ in criminal motions practice is a specialized term denoting the exclusion from trial of any evidence procured illegally, typically in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights or protections,” wrote Justice Carlos A. Samour Jr. “The county court judge did not preclude any evidence that was illegally obtained, let alone evidence allegedly collected in violation of (the defendant’s) constitutional rights or protections.”

Samour added that the court would be green-lighting many immediate appeals of routine evidentiary decisions were it to expand the meaning of the term ‘suppressing evidence’.

Consequently, the justices agreed in Schneider’s case that McGuire’s order excluding the evidence did not fall within any of the scenarios that would allow the Supreme Court to address a suppression decision.

“Each of these grounds for suppression is premised on a violation of a defendant’s Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, or Fourteenth Amendment rights,” the court wrote. “By contrast, the motion and order excluding evidence here were grounded entirely in (Colorado law).”

Travis Sides, the elected district attorney, did not immediately know if McGuire’s decision could otherwise be appealed to the Court of Appeals.

“Based on the ruling, I don’t see a legal path forward for the prosecution,” said Levi Price, an attorney for Schneider. “We were surprised they litigated the original motion rather than just using it as a teachable moment for the police, and really surprised when they appealed.”

The case is People v. Schneider.