Cops IGNORE the Evidence and Get Absolutely SCHOOLED in Court!

Around 2:00 a. m. on September 20th, 2025, officers of the Wheat Ridge Police Department in Colorado were dispatched to a gas station where a pickup truck had become entangled in a wire anchoring a utility pole.

Defendant Caleb Bowers, the truck's registered owner, was the only individual that officers found near the vehicle. And after concluding that he was intoxicated, they arrested him for driving under the influence. Following his arrest, Mr Bowers refused to submit to chemical testing.

Mr Bowowers, represented by public defender Robert Nickant, filed a motion to suppress evidence of his refusal on the ground that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him along with a motion to dismiss the case. The matter came before the Jefferson County Court in Golden, Colorado for a hearing on the motions and the prosecution called Officer Jones of the Wheatidge Police Department as its first witness. Motion to suppress has been filed as well as a motion to dismiss great house violation.

With regard to those motions, are the people ready to proceed? Yes, judge. All right.

People can call their witness. Thank you, judges. People call um Sean Jones to the stand.

Sir, good afternoon. If you could come on up here to the witness stand, please. And if you would raise your right hand.

Okay. Officer, could you please state your name and spell your last name for the record for us? My name is Officer Shawn Jones.

Last name J O N S. Officer Jones, were you working on September 20th, 2025, overnight shift? Yes.

And around 158 a. m. , you were dispatched to 6065 West 48th Avenue?

Yes. Okay. And that was regarding uh some type of ready report?

Yes. Okay. Now, as you were being dispatched, um do you remember hearing a description of um the individual that you might be contacting?

Yes. Okay. Um do you hear the description that the individual male just stepped out of the vehicle?

He was wearing a dark shirt and light colored jeans. Yes, I believe that's what it states. Now, talk to me a little bit about uh when you arrived.

What did you observe? I observed, I believe, a Dodge Ram. It looked like it was caught up in an electric pole.

Um, I'm not sure the specific ver verbiage for the wires that were stuck in the tire, but um, I remember when I was walking up, I believed what I saw were alcohol containers because I believe the doors were open and I saw a uh, black male on the passenger side near the front passenger wheel uh, who I believe was wearing white shorts and a dark shirt to start off. And that um that description, did that match the description of the ready reporter gave? Uh I believe the dark shirt and light colored pants would match.

Um at least for my arrival, those were my thoughts. Yes. You were the first officer to arrive on scene?

Yes. Okay. The first officer to speak with Mr Bowers?

Yes. Um there was nobody else in the vicinity when you arrived? I don't believe so.

No. I mean, maybe people at the gas station, but I was the only officer, and I believe he was the only person near the truck. Near the truck.

Okay. So, you contacted Ryan Brown, the reporting party in this case? Yes.

Via phone? Yes. Okay.

And what did he tell you about uh what he observed? Um, I believe he was um detailed in what he observed with the truck uh with the tires skidding and basically it seemed like this vehicle was trying to leave while being stuck in a utility pole. And when you asked for a further description of the male, he said he couldn't tell if the male was uh Hispanic.

I believe so. He also told you that he could have been wearing really long white shorts. I believe so.

Yes. And furthermore, he he did tell you he thought there may have been a passenger involved. Is that correct?

I believe so. Yes. I I think he mentioned something about there could have been a second person, but I don't believe he articulated much further on that.

Right. He essentially said that he wasn't he was 50/50 on it. He didn't actually know.

Yes. And so it became pretty clear to officers on scene that Mr Bowers was intoxicated. Yes.

Um, and also became clear on scene from you and other officers that Mr Bowers was the driver of the vehicle. That's what I believed when I was on scene. And so eventually he was arrested um for driving under the influence.

Yes. Officer Jones testifies that he was dispatched to the gas station in response to a so-called ready report and found Mr Bower standing near the passenger side of the truck with no other individuals in its vicinity. Ready stands for report every drunk driver immediately.

A program used in Colorado and several other states that encourages citizens who observe signs of impaired driving to report the vehicle by calling 911 or a dedicated state patrol line so that dispatchers can relay the information to officers in the area. In the 1972 case of Adams v. Williams.

The Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not require reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop to rest on an officer's personal observation and information supplied by another individual can provide sufficient suspicion to justify a detention. The same is true of probable cause for an arrest. In the 1983 case of Illinois v.

Gates. The Supreme Court held that an informant's tip, even an anonymous one, is evaluated under the totality of the circumstances with the informant's veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge serving as relevant considerations in determining whether the information establishes probable cause. A Colorado law goes a step further when the source of a third party tip is identified.

As the Colorado Supreme Court explained in the 1981 case of People v. Henry, when information comes from an identified citizen informer who witnessed a crime, the information is presumed to be reliable and the prosecution is not required to establish either the credibility of the citizen or the reliability of the information. Well, under this precedent, the testimony from the ready reporter, who identified himself as Ryan Brown, could properly be considered in determining whether probable cause supported Mr Bowers's arrest.

You would agree with me that Mr Bowers is, as you describe him in your report and as you described him on direct examination, he is a black male, right? Yes. Okay.

Um, having met Mr Bowers, you also know about other ways to describe him, right? Yes. Okay.

You would describe him as kind of below average in height, right? He's about 5' 7 in tall or so. I don't recall his height.

Okay. Would you agree with me that he's not abnormally tall? Yes.

Okay. You would also agree with me. I assume that he's not fat, anything like that, but he's slightly overweight, right?

In in my eyes, I'd say medium build, but sure. Okay. Medium build, but not thin.

That's not how you would describe him, right? No. Okay.

I want to put aside that photograph. You on direct examination talked about the lighting at the gas station that day, right? Yes.

And you said that there was actually a lot of artificial light, right? Yeah, I believe so. Okay.

There might not have been light in the surrounding area like where Mr Brown, the reporting party, was calling from, right? I don't recall. Okay.

But you do recall that the gas station itself that was illuminated for anybody to look onto it, right? I just recall artificial lighting at some point while I was on scene where I was able to see certain things because of the artificial lighting. We reach police department.

Hey, we reach police department. How's it going? You all right?

What's going on? 2:03 a. m.

and 46 seconds, right? Yeah. Okay.

Okay. And when we look at that bodywn camera, we see a little bit of that, a lot of bit of that artificial lighting that you were talking about on direct examination, right? Yes.

When you talk about artificial lighting, you're talking about it looks like there's maybe six at least lights that are underneath the canopy of the Shell gas station, right? Yes. And then before where we're paused in this video, we also saw a couple street lights, right?

Yes. And the truck that you found at that Shell gas station, it was almost directly underneath those street lights, right? Yes.

So, the truck itself was illuminated by that artificial lighting, right? Yeah. Maybe it's possible that his line of sight would have been obstructed by other cars, right?

Potentially. But you said potentially because as you acknowledged on direct examination, it wasn't really a crowded night out there, right? Yeah.

There weren't a lot of cars on the road that would have obstructed the line of sight that Mr Brown would have had to the gas station, right? I don't believe so. No.

You approached the car initially on its driver's side, right? Yes. And that's because you were looking for a driver, right?

Yes. Mr Brown was describing somebody kind of revving the engine, trying to make the car go, trying to get it unstuck, right? Yes.

But when you went to the driver's side, you didn't find anybody in the driver's seat, right? No, you did find the person who you later identified as Mr Bowers, right? Yes.

But he was on the passenger side of the car, right? Yes. And he was from the moment that you came to the scene, right?

Yes. Okay. And then you wanted to speak with the reporting party, right?

I believe so. Yes. And that was Mr Brown.

Yes. While you spoke with Mr Brown, your body worn camera was on, right? I believe so.

So, it would have captured that conversation that you described on direct examination, I believe. So, yeah. Yeah.

So, I was sleeping and I heard tires squealing and rubber and um and then looked out and guys in the pickup truck looked like they were stuck on the down guy, the wire that attaches to the pole um that stabilizes it. Yeah. And did you see what the driver looked like?

Uh I know he was wearing he was wearing light colored pants. light colored pants with a darker shirt and it looked like it was a like maybe a sweatshirt with light pants. Skinny guy was the uh what I guess ethnic background would you think he was?

I I really couldn't say. Um I want to say maybe Hispanic. Just a quick look I had.

And how far are you from when you saw this? About 100 ft I would say. You're about 100 ft.

Okay. 100 ft dark. It's hard to tell.

I I live right next to the gas station. Okay. Okay, cool.

How many people did you see in the truck? Uh, two. I think it looked like the driver got out for a minute with and what I seen is like a dark sweater and it looked like he was taking a leak at his door.

Okay. Um, so you think there's two. Did you see description for the second male?

No, not really. I I thought I seen something in the back window. I could see someone on the side uh in the passenger seat.

In passenger seat. Okay. Uh did you see if that person left?

No, I did not. Oh, okay. Um just curious cuz there's only one person, so I don't I guess like how certain are you that there were two people?

I'd say 50/50, but I do know for a fact the driver was a skinnier guy wearing uh lighter colored denim jeans with a accident has been updated. Like a black sweatshirt, long sleeve and he was skinnier. Okay, that was that's all I seen.

Okay. Um then I kind of tried to mind my own business, I guess. Oh, but you're you're saying the driver was a skinnier Hispanic male wearing light colored pants and a darker shirt or sweater.

Yeah. Yep. He got out of the driver's side um door, right?

And it looked like he was taking a leak. So, he may have been just looking at the wire, but he didn't he didn't go past his driver's door. Okay.

And then and you don't you don't uh know if he had left the scene before police got here? I do not. Okay.

Okay. So, we just listened to the phone call that you had with Mr Brown on September 20th of 2025. It was about 5 minutes and 30 seconds long and it ended at 2:13 a.

m. 5 seconds in. Is that all right?

Yes. Okay. Let's talk about that phone call a little bit.

Near the end of it, you asked Mr Brown if he saw the person who the police encountered, right? Yes. Okay.

And he said that he did see the police interact with someone, right? Yes. Brown.

Mr Bowers, as we saw on your body worn camera footage earlier, he was wearing really long shorts, right? Yes. Okay.

So, that's the person that Mr Brown was talking about seeing y'all interact with, right? More than likely. Yes.

Okay. He didn't describe the driver in the same terms that he described the person that police were interacting with. Right.

Correct. He described the driver as wearing white pants, right? Yes.

Light colored pants. Yes. Light colored pants.

And then he never bridged the gap saying, "Oh, yeah. The guy that I was describing before in these light pants, that's the same guy who I saw in light shorts. " Right.

He never bridged that gap. Correct. Okay.

He also described kind of the build of the driver, right? Yes. Earlier on cross- examination, you told me that you thought that Mr Bowers was kind of medium build, right?

Yes. Mr Brown described the driver as a skinny guy, right? Correct.

And he said that he with respect to that person's ethnicity thought that he was maybe Hispanic. Right. Correct.

And Mr Bowers is not someone who you would immediately identify as Hispanic. Right. Correct.

I have no further questions for this witness. Mr Nick cross-examines Officer Jones about the description that Mr Brown provided of the driver, focusing on the differences between that description and Mr Bowers's race, height, and build along with Mr Brown's report that a second individual may have been in the truck. These differences are central to the state's case, as Mr Bowers was arrested for driving under the influence, meaning that the officers needed to have probable cause to believe that he was in fact the individual driving the truck.

Whether a witness description is sufficient to support probable cause for an arrest is evaluated under the totality of the circumstances. In the 1985 case of People v. Bell, the Colorado Supreme Court explained in the context of an investigatory stop that the critical inquiry concerning the adequacy of a description is whether it permits so-called selectivity.

Meaning that the more points of comparison that a witness provides, the more the description narrows the universe of possible suspects. The court further noted that a suspect need not match every point of a description as the analysis weighs the strength of the points that do match against the nature of those that do not, including whether an error as to the mismatch points would be improbable. Now, here, Mr Nickens questioning demonstrated that the nature of the descriptive factors which did not match was so fundamental that it was unlikely that a witness would make such a mistake in their description.

As Mr Brown described the driver as a tall, skinny male who he believed might be Hispanic, while Mr Bowers is a 5'7, 240lb black man. Now, Officer Jones, you were the first officer to arrive on scene once again. Is that correct?

Yes. Okay. And we just watched a clip of you speaking to the um reporting party, Mr Brown, right?

Yes. Okay. Officer showed up.

Yep. Yep. They got the lights on.

So, okay. Perfect. Okay.

What we heard there was he was describing to the dispatcher that he had been spinning the tire for about 15 minutes or so, right? Yes. And uh then at the very end of that 911 call, you hear uh Mr Brown say something effective.

Oh, law enforcement has arrived on scene. Yes. Okay.

And I've already asked you this twice, but just after watching that now, just to clarify, you were the first officer to arrive on scene. Yes. And nobody else was in the vicinity anywhere near the car in fact other than the defendant in this case.

Correct. All right. No further questions.

Anything based on that? Mr Nikon, just under 106. I'd like to play a particular portion of the call.

I didn't hear it coming in. It was hard for me to hear. I just want to make sure that we get it in its full context.

Sure. Yeah. It looks like he's wearing like a light color jeans.

He just stepped out. I don't know if he's teen or what. And on redirect examination, the prosecutor asked if Mr Brown kind of remained on the phone with the police until you arrived.

Right. Yes. And he asked about how that individual was skitting their tires for like 15 minutes leading up to your arrival.

Right. Correct. Okay.

He says that he steps out and then he gives a description. Right. Yes.

He says that he's wearing pants. Right. Yes.

He says that he's wearing a sweater. Right. Yes.

And then the phone call goes on for another 2 minutes or so, right? I believe so. Okay.

So, about 2 minutes before you arrived on scene, that's when the driver stepped out, right? I'm unsure if what you're telling me is true with the timeline, then it sounds like Yes. Okay.

Something like that. As far as there were at least a couple minutes between the time that the driver got out and the time that you arrived, right? Okay.

Is that fair to say? Yes. Okay.

I have no further questions for this witness. After officer Jones stepped down, the prosecution called its second witness, Officer Adame, who had also responded to the scene. And on September 20th, 2025, about about 2 a.

m. 204 a. m.

, uh, you responded to a motor vehicle crash. Yes, I did. 6065 West 48th Avenue.

Correct. Okay. And when you arrived on scene, you spoke to individual Caleb Bowers.

I did. And you realized that the truck that was involved in the motor vehicle crash belonged and was registered to Mr Bowers. Correct.

Right. Okay. Tell me a little bit about Mr Bower's intoxication.

When I arrived on scene, I noticed he was at the rear of his truck. His intoxication, I it was immediate. I was able to tell immediately that he was intoxicated based off of what I observed from his eyes and the the scent from his breath.

There was a odor of alcohol coming from his breath. Correct. And Mr Bowers told you that he actually couldn't stand up.

That's correct. And had extremely slurred speech. Yes.

Okay. What did he uh tell you about what happened? He said he didn't know.

He did not know. Did you ask him about the truck? I didn't.

Okay. What did he tell you about the truck? Told me it wasn't registered to him or that it wasn't his truck.

Something along those lines. But you had already cleared that it wasn't in fact his truck. It was registered to him.

Correct. Okay. You asked him if he had or somebody along the lines asked him if he had been drinking.

Right. Correct. And um and he denied any alcohol uh consumption.

Correct. And at no point during any of these conversations, brief or not, that you had with Mr Bowers um did he tell you that he was with anybody? He did not.

Okay. Um did Mr Bowers tell you that he was a passenger in the car? Not that I can recall.

Okay. When you were arresting him, he he didn't tell you anything about why he shouldn't be arrested because he wasn't the driver. Correct.

How would you describe what he was wearing that day? I remember he was wearing a darker color top uh lighter colored um bottoms. I believe they were shorts.

Shorts, but were they like long shorts? They were pretty long. Yes.

Okay. And they were lightish color whitish color. And do you remember the shirt?

Was it like a navyish? It was a darker navy blue type of color. Yes.

Is it fair to say that the navy colored shirt blended in with his skin color? Yes. Officer Adame, on direct examination, you testified that at no point, Mr Bowers said that there was a different driver, right?

But I can recall I I don't believe he mentioned there was another driver. Okay. You had your body worn camera on throughout your interaction with Mr Bowers, right?

Correct. Hey, were you you were driving the car? Were you wearing your seat belt?

No. Say that again. Yes, sir.

Okay. Were you walking around after the accident? Just watched some body warn camera footage from that day.

Right. Correct. Okay.

And in that, Mr Bowers, he's on the body warn camera footage, right? Correct. And he's speaking with hospital staff.

Right. Correct. And they ask him if he was driving.

Right. They did. That's a question that you never asked Mr Bowers.

Right. Correct. When they asked him if he was driving, he said, "No, he was not driving.

" Right. Correct. Then they asked him if he was wearing his seat belt.

Right. Yes. And he said, "Yes, sir.

" Right. Correct. Then they asked him if there was a different driver.

Right. Correct. And he confirmed that there was a different driver.

Right. He said there wasn't. Okay.

He said there was to hospital staff. We're sorry. There there was.

I meant Yeah. Sorry about that. That's okay.

Just to make crystal clear. He said that there was another driver and that he was not the driver. You'd agree with that?

Yes, sir. Okay. In the ticket, in the police reports that you wrote, you had to describe Mr Bowers, right?

Correct. And you described him as a black male, right? Yes.

Because he is a kind of darker skinned African-American man. Is that fair to say? Yes, sir.

Okay. You also had to describe his height, right? Correct.

And he's below average in height. He's 5' 7 in. Right.

Yes. As far as his weight goes, he's 240 lb. Right.

Correct. Okay. On that same report, you had the opportunity to jot down whether there was any injury, right?

Yes. Or any illness, right? Yes.

And you didn't write anything there, right? I don't remember, but if I didn't, then yeah. Permission to approach.

Sure. Yes, I did not write anything there. Back to any injury or illness because to your knowledge, Mr Bowers wasn't injured, right?

And he wasn't ill. From what I understood, correct? Okay.

From what you could tell, just even looking at him, he didn't have any cuts on his person, any like bloody throw up down, you know, running down his shirt, nothing like that, right? Yes, sir. Okay.

Didn't have any blood on him whatsoever. Correct. Mr Bowers said within your earshot, as we saw in that body worn camera footage, that he was not the driver, right?

Yes. When you found that out, did you or any other officer go to the Shell gas station? Not that I can recall.

I know I didn't, but I don't know if anyone else did. Okay. No one went back to the Shell gas station to learn whether there was any camera footage that would have depicted the crash, right?

I don't know if anyone went back or not. Okay. Had you been to that gas station before?

I have. Okay. And you've probably been to a lot of gas stations just as a human being, right?

Correct. So, you're aware as a police officer, but then also just as a human being that gas stations tend to have lots of cameras, right? Generally, yes.

And generally they have lots of cameras because they can often be targets for robberies, things like that. Right. Correct.

And because people are constantly passing in and out of them, paying for a lot of gas, paying for a lot of merchandise, that means that they need cameras. Right. Correct.

At no point did you or any other officer, to your knowledge, try and find any camera footage from that gas station. Right. To my knowledge, no.

Okay. Would you agree with me that there are cameras at that gas station? I believe there's cameras inside.

I don't know about outside. Okay. You didn't check whether there were any cameras outside.

I did not. It was 4 in the morning. I was in charge of taking Mr Bowers to the hospital.

So, I went from there to there. But then after Mr Bowers was taken to the hospital, you certainly had an opportunity at some point between September 20th and the present to go back to the gas station, right? I could have.

Yes. Okay. And between September 20th and the present, you and to your knowledge, no other officer has gone back to the gas station.

Right. Correct. No one from your office, to your knowledge, has discerned whether or not that camera footage ever existed or whether it still exists.

Right. Correct. Following officer Adam's testimony that neither he nor to his knowledge any other officer attempted to locate camera footage from the gas station, the defense called Amanda Reinhardt, an investigator with the Office of the Public Defender, to the stand.

Judge, I'll call to the stand Amanda Reinhardt. Okay. Ma'am, if you could please raise your right hand.

Okay. Good afternoon. Hi.

Could you please state your first and last name spelling your last name for the record? Amanda Reinhardt. R I N E H A R T.

Miss Reinhardt, what do you do for work? I am an investigator for your office. Okay.

And is that the office of the public defender? Yes. Okay.

How long have you been an investigator for the office of the public defender? Eight years. Did you go there at some point on May 8th of 2026?

Yes. Okay. And while you were there, did you go inside the gas station?

I did. Did you speak with any employees? More than one.

Yes. Okay. Can you walk us through what those conversations consisted of?

Uh, yep. I went inside. I asked a cashier if there was somebody I could speak to about the surveillance cameras outside and she introduced me to, excuse me, a man named Dave who was identified as a manager in the office in the back.

Did Dave tell you whether that footage did exist at one point? Uh, he told me that it would no longer exist at the day that I was asking about it because it was retained for a maximum of six months. Did you ask this manager, Dave, whether the cameras were in the same position as they were that day as in September of 2025?

Um, I don't think I used the verbiage that position, but I did ask if the cameras were there in September, and he said they were. So, right now we have on the screen what has been marked as defense exhibit E, right? Yes.

That is a photo of the Shell gas station in the Bowowers case, right? Yes. Okay.

We see over to the left that there is a utility pole, right? Yes. It looks like there's a jeep parked behind that utility pole, right?

Yes. And then going down from the top of the utility pole more toward where you took this photograph from, there's some wires going down to the ground, right? Yes.

Those are called guy wires, right? I have since learned. Yes.

Okay. Me, too. Uh and those things that we've now learned are guywires.

They have a yellow coating, right? Yeah. I think it's like a plastic tube over the wiring.

And based off of your review of the Discovery, that seems to be the guy wire that the truck was stuck in in September, right? Yes. Okay.

I want to go to the next photo. Could you flip to the next one for me, please? Thank you.

Okay. This photograph, Defense F, that portrays the gas station, right? Yes.

And specifically the cinder block building that a cashier would be inside that the kind of convenience store would be inside. Right. Yes.

That's the building that you went inside to talk to gas station staff. Right. Right.

On the corner um of the gas station there are some cameras. Right. Yes.

We can see some flood lights that are underneath a U-Haul sign. Right. Mhm.

And it's underneath that U-Haul sign that there are some cameras. Right. Yes.

That is one of the cameras, right? And that one isn't quite facing the guywire, but it is facing an entrance to the gas station, right? I think it's facing the parking lot area like where the guywire is, but not necessarily facing the direction that would have like captured where the car was stuck.

Okay. So, more like the parking lot area of the gas station. That's not the only camera though, right?

Right. Can you go to the next photograph? Those are two other cameras, right?

Yes. The one that is closest to the perspective of the camera, that one is facing in the direct opposite location of the guywire, right? This one is facing away and this one is facing towards.

Okay, perfect. And just for the record to reflect, it's the one near the top of the photograph that's facing away and the one more in the middle of the photograph underneath it that is facing you said it's facing toward the guy wires. This one is.

Yes. the white as opposed to the silverish. Did there come a time that you stood underneath that camera to take a photograph to see what that camera would have captured?

Yes. Is this a photograph taken underneath that camera that you just said was facing the guywire? Yes.

The police station staff said that they don't have any surveillance footage from September 20th because at that point it had already been automatically purged. Right. By the time I asked it had been purged.

Yes. Okay. M.

Reinhardt testifies that on May 8th, 2026, she visited the gas station where a manager confirmed that its surveillance cameras, including one facing the wire that the truck had been caught on, were in place on the night of Mr Bowers's arrest, and that any footage from that night, had been purged under the station's six-month retention policy. This testimony established that officers neither obtained the footage at the time of the arrest, nor conducted any follow-up investigation during the 6 months that it remained available. Well, after Miss Reinhardt completed her testimony, the attorneys presented their arguments on the motion to suppress, beginning with Mr Nickant.

My motion cites a variety of cases that say even if probable cause is a relatively low standard when compared to the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard, the police cannot ignore obvious evidence of a person's innocence. Mr Bowers, without any knowledge whatsoever, said that he was not the driver when it turned out that the reporting party also said that there was potentially an alternate driver. The reporting party described that person as Hispanic, not as African-American.

He described that person as thin, whereas the evidence that we have is that Mr Bowers weighs 240 lb. Uh Mr Brown said that the driver appeared to be tall. The evidence on direct or cross-examination of officer Adam is that Mr Bowers is 5' 7 in tall.

Mr Bowers did not have any blood on his person. No injuries whatsoever. He didn't have any bloody throw up on his person.

What we saw in defense exhibit D was there is what appears to be blood coming from the driver's side seat. So the evidence seems consistent that there is just this alt suspect that the police in no way attempted to locate, in no way attempted to pursue, and that is not enough for a prudent person to be convinced that Mr Bowers was the person that was driving that car. So I'm asking the court to find there was no probable cause and suppress um the refusal.

Mr Nick argues that the officers lacked probable cause to believe that Mr Bowers had been driving, asserting that the officers could not ignore the obvious evidence of Mr Bowers's innocence. The US Supreme Court held in the 2018 case of District of Columbia v. Westby that officers are not required to rule out a suspect's innocent explanation for suspicious facts before making an arrest.

The Supreme Court of Colorado applied the same principle in the 2011 case of People v Castanada, explaining that the fact that innocent explanations can be imagined, does not defeat a showing of probable cause, and that officers may draw appropriate inferences from circumstantial evidence, even where that evidence might also support other inferences. However, these principles do not permit officers to completely disregard exculpatory evidence and make an arrest when the totality of the circumstances weighs in favor of the suspect's innocence. As the Supreme Court of Colorado outlined in the Castanada case, probable cause exists when the objective facts and circumstances available to a reasonably cautious officer at the time of arrest justify the belief that an offense has been or is being committed by the individual arrested.

Now, in this instance, a showing of probable cause required the officers to have a reasonable belief that Mr Bowers had been driving despite the conflict with the description that was provided by Mr Brown. Accordingly, Mr Nickens's position was that the exculpatory information was not merely a potentially innocent alternative, but the account of the only eyewitness whose description of the driver did not match Mr Bowers's race, height, or build. There's a lot of evidence that was provided today that would have the court assume that he was um the driver.

Um I believe Mr Nikon is pointing the court to a couple of the inconsistencies, but I think with uh the ready reporters, Mr Brown's uh accounts, what's important to note is that um he noted it was 50/50 certain on a couple things. Officer Jones was the first to arrive on scene. And while off when Officer Jones arrived on scene, the reporting party hung up after noting that law enforcement arrived on scene, was watching the car the entire time.

During that 911 call, dispatcher had told him to stay on to stay on the call because this individual in the car was actively trying to get away by spinning his tires. I think that's the most important fact here is that we have from contact um reporting party to law enforcement contact an individual found the only individual found on scene and no statement suggesting on the scene that there was anybody else but as we're looking at it now as it stands for probable cause for arrest when you're looking at the vehicle registered to him being the only individual in the vicinity um officer Jones being the first to arrive on scene from a ready report certainly some matching descriptions from the ready reporter and what was found on scene I think that's plenty enough to have invoked probable cause for arrest. So he called 911.

He's an identified ready reporter, identified citizen informant. So his information is presumed to be reliable. That frankly cuts both ways.

Cuts both ways for the prosecution as well as for the defense. So when he says something is presumed to be reliable, doesn't need any cooperation. The ready reporter stated on the call and again when he was speaking with officer Jones that he thought there were two people in the vehicle.

In fact, at one point he says there were two guys getting out of I saw two guys getting out of the vehicle. So he seemed fairly certain that there were two individuals associated with this truck. And the question is whether or not there's probable cause for him to have been driving because that's part of it.

It's not just whether or not problem caused to believe he was impaired by or under the influence and certainly the indition of intoxication is typically what we talk about and potentially roadside maneuvers although none was given in this case but that's factored into probable cause as to whether or not the person was under the influence or impaired but there also has to be probable cause that the individual was driving and probable cause is a totality of the circumstances test. It's all the circumstances and in terms of Mr Bowers being the driver. It is true that the truck was registered to him.

There's no that's uncontroverted testimony that the truck was registered to him. But there was no testimony that the vehicle or the truck was running when officers got there. No idea where the keys to the ignition were.

But again, it's presumed reliable when the ready reporter says he saw two people associated with the truck. And the description he gave of the driver, while arguably might be consistent with Mr Bowers, because Mr of our shorts and I saw in the video they were very long might be mistaken for jeans at a distance and the dark colored sweater might be consistent with what Mr Bowers was wearing and and also blending into his skin color but the description of the bill does not match Mr Bowers where it finds that there was no probable cause that Mr Bowers was the driver. Certainly probable cause that he was intoxicated.

But I can't find there's probable cause that he was the driver. So with probable cause not being established as to that, the defense motion to suppress is granted because I find there was no probable cause to invoke express consent because there was no probable cause to believe that Mr Bowers was the driver. Motion to dismiss.

Well, with the court's ruling on the motion to suppress, how do the people want to proceed with the case? We will move to dismiss the case this time. So that sort of takes care of that.

All right. Then understanding the people's position after the court's ruling on the motion to suppress case is dismissed on the motion of the district attorney and ordered sealed. Mr Bowers is order released from custody as to the case and the pre-trial readiness and trial dates that we had set are vacated.

Anything further, Mr Nikon? No. Thank you.

Mr Bowers, good luck. The court found probable cause that Mr Bowers was intoxicated, but not that he was the driver. and granted the motion to suppress.

The prosecution responded by moving to dismiss the case, which the court granted, ordering that Mr Bowers be released from custody and that the case be sealed as required by section 24-72-705 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, which directs a court to seal a defendant's criminal just records on its own motion whenever a case is completely dismissed. This hearing demonstrates how investigative shortcuts can undermine the administration of justice, both by exposing a potentially innocent individual to prosecution and by allowing a potentially guilty one to go free. The only person who watched the crash described a tall, thin driver he believed to be Hispanic.

And he reported that a second individual appeared to be in the truck. Mr hours is a 5'7", 240lb black man who was found on the passenger side of the vehicle and told hospital staff within an officer's hearing that someone else had been driving. Well, rather than treat that account as a reason to keep looking, officers treated the registration and his presence at the scene as the end of the inquiry.

Surveillance cameras overlooking the crash site could have identified the driver, and that footage remained available for 6 months while nobody asked for it. The consequences of the officer's failure to investigate not only subjected Mr Bowers to arrest and prosecution for driving under the influence when the court ultimately found that the arresting officers lacked probable cause to believe that he had been driving at all, but also potentially allowed an individual who committed a crime to escape. If someone else truly was behind the wheel that night, as the evidence strongly suggests, the driver was never identified, never contacted, and never held accountable for fleeing a crash scene, leaving the public without an answer.

Let us know if there is a case or courtroom interaction that you would like us to explore in the comments below. Thank you for watching and don't forget to like and subscribe so we can help foster a more informed society.