Volume 38 — Pacific Reporter, Third Series

<bold>No. 01SA210</bold>, <bold><underline>People v. Koverman</underline></bold> <bold>Constitutional Law — Fifth Amendment</bold><bold>Right Against Self-Incrimination — Threat of Discharge from Employment —</bold><bold>Coercion — Objectively Reasonable Belief — Sufficient State Action</bold>. In this case, the supreme court holds that the trial court incorrectly suppressed defendant Gary Koverman's statement because the record did not support an objectively reasonable belief under the circumstances that the statement was a product of coercion based on the threat of loss of employment. Koverman, a Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) agent, made statements to investigating CBI agents regarding missing ecstasy pills that his superiors suspected him of stealing. In the subsequent criminal case, Koverman moved to suppress his statement as unconstitutionally compelled by the threat of loss of employment. The trial court agreed, suppressing the statement. The court reaffirms that a statement is only compelled by the threat of loss of employment when the evidence demonstrates: (1) that the defendant subjectively believes that his employer will dismiss him for asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege; and (2) that such belief is objectively reasonable under the circumstances. While Koverman may have held a subjective belief that he would be terminated absent cooperation in responding to questions, there is insufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that the state induced such belief and that, therefore, the belief was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, in accordance with the two prong test this court adopted in<underline>People v. Sapp</underline>, <cross_reference>934 P.2d 1367</cross_reference> (Colo. 1997), the supreme court reverses the trial court's order granting the defendant's motion to suppress and returns this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.