Search



Not a CBA Member? Join Now!
Find A Lawyer Directory
STRATUM
Find A Lawyer Directory
Know Your Judge

Colorado Supreme Court Opinions
March 5, 2012

2012 CO 16. No. 10SC15. Scoggins v. People.
C.A.R. 35(e).

The Supreme Court was equally divided about the court of appeals’ ruling in People v. Scoggins, 240 P.3d 331, 334 (Colo.App. 2009). Justice Hobbs, Justice Rice, and Justice Eid would affirm the court of appeals’ judgment; Chief Justice Bender, Justice Coats, and Justice Boatright would reverse. By operation of law [C.A.R. 35(e)], the decision of the court of appeals was affirmed, without opinion.

2012 CO 17. No. 10SC344. Regents of the University of Colorado v. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, LLC.
Regulating Concealed Handgun Possession on Campus—Concealed Carry Act—Right to Bear Arms.

The Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, LLC, along with Martha Altman, Eric Mote, and John Davis, (collectively, Students) filed a complaint against the University of Colorado’s Board of Regents (Board) and others, alleging that the Board’s Weapons Control Policy (Policy) violated the Colorado Concealed Carry Act (CCA) and the Colorado Constitution’s right to bear arms. The Board filed a motion to dismiss under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5), which the district court granted. The Students appealed, and the court of appeals reversed.

The Supreme Court held that the CCA’s comprehensive statewide purpose, broad language, and narrow exclusions show that the General Assembly intended to divest the Board of its authority to regulate concealed handgun possession on campus. Accordingly, the Court agreed with the court of appeals that, by alleging the Policy violates the CCA, the Students have stated a claim for relief. Because the Court affirmed on statutory grounds, it did not consider the Students’ constitutional claim.

2012 CO 18. No. 10SC386. O’Hara III v. People.
Wiretapping—CRS § 16-15-102(1)(a).

The Supreme Court held that CRS § 16-15-102(1)(a) requires the attorney general or an elected district attorney to personally authorize an application to initiate or extend a wiretap, but does not require the elected official to personally prepare or submit the application. The Court concluded that a remand for further findings and conclusions by the trial court is appropriate in this case, given that neither the parties nor the trial court had the benefit of the Court’s interpretation of the authorization requirements of CRS § 16-15-102(1)(a). The Court therefore affirmed the court of appeals’ decision to remand this case, albeit on different grounds, and remanded to the court of appeals with directions to remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Colorado Supreme Court Opinions

Back