The People of the State of Colorado v. Collin Schneider

── The People of the State of Colorado v. Collin Schneider ── Court: Supreme Court of Colorado Date: May 04, 2026 Category: General 1 2026 CO 27 The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Collin Schneider, Defendant-Appellee. No. 26SA55 Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc May 4, 2026 2           Interlocutory Appeal from the District Court Logan County District Court Case No. 25CR186 Honorable Carl Sidney McGuire III, Judge           Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant: Travis J. Sides, District Attorney, Thirteenth Judicial District Kayla Lynn Gehringer, Deputy District Attorney           Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee: OllomPrice Criminal Defense, Ross Ollom Levi Price. 3           PER CURIAM. 4          ¶1 This case comes before us as an interlocutory appeal under C.A.R. 4.1 asking us to review a Logan County District Court order granting a defendant's pretrial motion to exclude evidence under section 24-31-902, C.R.S. (2025). That statute requires officers to activate their body-worn cameras under certain circumstances and creates a rebuttable presumption of inadmissibility of unrecorded evidence related to the incident if the officer fails to do so. § 24-31-902(1)(a)(II)-(III). Because we conclude that we lack appellate jurisdiction to consider this case under C.A.R. 4.1, we dismiss the appeal.          I. Facts and Procedural History          ¶2 Defendant Collin Schneider was charged with vehicular eluding and reckless driving. Schneider filed a pretrial motion to exclude officers' testimony pursuant to section 24-31-902, arguing that the officers failed to activate their body-worn cameras as required by that statute. He contended that there was no basis to rebut the statutory presumption of inadmissibility of the officers' testimony regarding the events that should have been recorded. Thus, he asserted, the officers' testimony regarding approximately twenty minutes of unrecorded police activity was inadmissible and must be excluded from trial. At the motions hearing, the district court's findings and conclusions on this issue related only to 5 whether the police violated section 24-31-902. Ultimately, the district court granted Schneider's motion.          ¶3 The People thereafter filed this C.A.R. 4.1 appeal challenging the district court's order excluding the officers' testimony under section 24-31-902.          II. Analysis          ¶4 "Because we must always satisfy ourselves that we have jurisdiction to hear an appeal, we may raise jurisdictional defects sua sponte, regardless of whether the parties have raised the issue." People v. S.X.G., 2012 CO 5, ¶ 9, 269 P.3d 735, 737.          ¶5 Here, we conclude we lack jurisdiction to hear this case as an interlocutory appeal under section 16-12-102(2), C.R.S. (2025), and C.A.R. 4.1. Section 16-12-102(2) and C.A.R. 4.1 authorize the prosecution to immediately appeal a district court's order granting a defendant's pretrial motion to suppress evidence based on certain constitutional violations. People v. Brown, 2022 CO 11, ¶ 13, 504 P.3d 970, 974. Here, however, the district court's order granted a motion to exclude evidence under section 24-31-902. Because section 16-12-102(2) and C.A.R. 4.1 do not authorize such an appeal, we lack jurisdiction to consider it.          ¶6 Section 16-12-102(2) authorizes the prosecution in criminal cases to file an interlocutory appeal in the supreme court under limited circumstances. Largely tracking the statute, Colorado Appellate Rule 4.1(a) limits our appellate review to 6 district court orders granting a defendant's pretrial motion under Crim. P. 41(e) and (g) and Crim. P. 41.1(i). Crim. P. 41(e) concerns the return of property and the suppression of evidence resulting from an unlawful search and seizure; Crim. P. 41(g) concerns the suppression of an involuntary confession or admission; and Crim. P. 41.1(i) concerns nontestimonial identification evidence seized without sufficien