Volume 186 — Colorado Reports

1. <bold>CRIMINAL LAW</bold> — <italic>Delays — Request of Defendant — Issue of Law —</italic><italic>Appealable.</italic> Where, on undisputed facts, the trial court ruled that delays were at the request and for the benefit of the defendant, the issue was one of law which is an appealable matter. 2. <bold>CRIMINAL PROCEDURE</bold> — <italic>Speedy Trial — Rules — Continuances — Failure to</italic><italic>Exclude — Error</italic>. Where defendant through his counsel requested and obtained continuances totaling nine weeks, trial court erred in not excluding such time period in computing time allowed within which to bring<page_number>Page 7</page_number> case to trial under Crim. P. 48(b). 3. <italic>Speedy Trial — Inapplicable — Statute — Six Months — Negative.</italic> Where the alleged offense was committed prior to July 1, 1972 it was not required that the case be brought to trial within six months from the date of plea of not guilty; the speedy trial provision of 1971 Perm. Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 40-1-505 does not apply to this action. 4. <italic>Speedy Trial — Determination — Denial — Prejudice — One Factor.</italic> Prejudice is only one factor to be considered in determining whether a defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial was denied. 5. <italic>Speedy Trial — Denial — Negative — Motion for Continuances — Delay —</italic><italic>— Counsel — Failure to Request — Early Trial Date.</italic> Where delay at time of filing motion to dismiss was less than one year from date of indictment; defendant had been out on bond for most of that time; his motion for continuances caused at least nine weeks delay and he was represented by counsel at all relevant times, and even though he appeared before the court several times he did not request an early trial date, <italic>held</italic>, under these circumstances, defendant was not denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. 6. <italic>Speedy Trial — Circumvented — Negative — Due Process.</italic> Where the good faith of the district attorney in filing a direct information in lieu of proceeding on indictment was not in question and where there was no denial of a speedy trial, <italic>held</italic>, under these circumstances, defendant was not denied his constitutional right to due process of law on the theory that speedy trial limitation was effectively circumvented.

1. <bold>ARREST</bold> — <italic>Stop for Questioning — Pat-Down — Gun — Lack of Probable</italic><italic>Cause.</italic> Where in the course of stopping defendant for questioning two police officers conducted a pat-down search of him and found a gun in his possession, <italic>held</italic>, under the circumstances, the officers had no probable cause to arrest defendant, or perhaps even to stop him and check for identification. 2. <bold>PROBATION</bold> — <italic>Revocation — Reviewable — Direct Appeal.</italic> Probation revocation orders are reviewable by direct appeal. 3. <italic>Hearing — Constitutional Guarantees — Full Range — Negative.</italic> At a probation revocation hearing the probationer is not entitled to claim the full range of constitutional guarantees available to one who has not yet been convicted of a crime. 4. <italic>Revocation — Strict Rules of Evidence — Not Binding.</italic> In a proceeding to determine whether probation should be revoked the court will not be bound by strict rules of evidence. 5. <italic>Revocation Hearings — Evidence — Improperly Seized — Exclusionary</italic><italic>Rule — Not Applied.</italic> The exclusionary rule will not be applied to improperly seized evidence in probation revocation hearings. 6. <bold>SEARCHES AND SEIZURES</bold> — <italic>Unreasonable — Shock — Conscience — Basis —</italic><italic>Sanction — Negative.</italic> Where the unreasonable search or seizure is such as to shock the conscience of the court, the court will not permit such conduct to be the basis of a state-imposed sanction.<page_number>Page 77</page_number>

1. <bold>HABEAS CORPUS</bold> — <italic>Filing — After Issuance — Warrant — Extradition — Issue</italic><italic>— Detention — Prior — Moot.</italic> Where accused filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus after issuance of governor's warrant for extradition of accused to Texas, <italic>held</italic>, under the circumstances, issue arising out of any alleged wrongful detention occurring prior to the issuance and service of the governor's warrant was moot. 2. <italic>Judicial Inquiry — Validity — Confinement — Hearing.</italic> Judicial inquiry in a habeas corpus proceeding is limited to the question of the<page_number>Page 140</page_number> validity of the prisoner's confinement at the time of the hearing.

1. <bold>INJUNCTION</bold> — <italic>Preliminary — Issue — Plaintiff — Probability of Success.</italic><page_number>Page 444</page_number> One of the issues before a court on preliminary injunction is the reasonable probability of success on the part of the plaintiff. 2. <italic>Restraining — Enforcement — Ordinances — Outdoor Advertising —</italic><italic>Preliminary — Time.</italic> In an action for an injunction restraining enforcement of ordinances relating to outdoor advertising devices, a preliminary injunction should not be enforced when a period of less than two months remains after enforcement commences until trial on the merits. 3. <italic>Purchaser — Knowledge — Ordinances — Delay — Action — Court —</italic><italic>Consider — Weigh Equities — Before Issuance.</italic> When a party knows of the ordinances before it purchases a particular business and, claiming irreparable injury, delays 21 months to commence an action, a court should consider this in weighing the equities before issuing a preliminary injunction. 4. <italic>Outdoor Advertising — Knowledge — Ordinances — Delay — Action — Not</italic><italic>Entitled.</italic> Where plaintiffs knew of ordinances relating to outdoor advertising devices before they purchased business but delayed 21 months before commencing an action for an injunction, <italic>held</italic>, under these circumstances, they were not entitled to a preliminary injunction. 5. <italic>Preliminary — Purpose — Status Quo.</italic> The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to maintain the status quo.