People v. Roybal, 655 P.2d 410 (Colo. 1982)
In People v. Roybal, the defendant was involved in serious car accident. When officers arrived at the scene, however, the defendant was not present. Sometime later, the defendant returned to the scene and informed the officers that he was the driver of one of the cars. The officer investigating accident detected an odor of alcohol on the defendant’s breath and placed him under arrest. While in the squad car, the defendant signed a written statement admitting to his activities. The defendant was then charged with DUI and vehicular assault.
At trial, the defendant moved to suppress all of the statements he made to the police. The defendant argued that the statements he made were the result of an unlawful arrest because the police did not have probable cause to arrest him. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion and the prosecution appealed.
On appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court held that the defendant’s arrest was not lawful and the statements made by the defendant after his arrest were properly suppressed. Specifically, the court held that any arrest must be supported by probable cause. Probable cause exists when there are sufficient facts that would lead a reasonably cautious officer to conclude that a crime had been or was being committed. In this case, however, the facts were insufficient to support a finding of probable cause. The only facts offered by the prosecution were that the defendant was involved in an accident and that he had an odor of alcohol on his breath. However, there was no evidence that the accident was the defendant’s fault and an odor of alcohol on the defendant’s breath alone is not inconsistent with the ability to drive. Therefore, the court held that there was no probable cause to arrest the defendant and any evidence obtained as a result of that arrest must be suppressed.
The Roybal case is among the most frequently cited decisions in DUI cases in Colorado. The decision is significant because it requires the police to have more than just a hunch that the defendant was drinking. The Roybal decision raised the bar for police investigating suspected drunk drivers and can be an effective weapon in defending a DUI.
