RECEIVED oat ge JACOBS, WHASE, FHICK Kore Certification of Word Count: 5680 SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO. Colorado State Judicial Building 2 East Fourteeath Ave., Fourth Floor Denver, CO 80203 Colorado Court of Appeals Case No. 09CA0796 Weld County District Court Honorable James A. Hiatt, District Court Judge il Action No. 2009-CV-100 Petitioners: AMALIA CERRILLO; LUIS NORIEGA, on behalf of himself and as class representative; JOHN DOE, on behalf of himself and as class representative; FRANK DOE, on behalf of himself and as class representative; ROBERT DOE, on behalf of himself and as class representative; Respondents: KENNETH R. BUCK, in his official capacity as District Attomey for the Nineteenth Judicial Distri JOHN COOKE, in his official ca County Sheriff, & COURT USE ONLY 4 Case Number: 09SC341‘Attorneys for Respondent Kenneth R. Buck: Lisa Hogan, #14132 Richard P. Barkley, #17161 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP 410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2200 Denver, CO 80202-4437 Phone: 303-223-1100; Fax: 303-223-1111 Email: rbarkley@bhfs.com; Thogan@bhis.com Attorneys for Respondent John Cooke: David R. Brougham, #1950 ‘Thomas J. Lyons, #8381 HALL & EVANS, LLL.C. 1125 Seventeenth Street, Suite 600 Denver, CO 80202-2052 Phone: 303-628-3300; Fax: 303-628-3368 Email: lyonst@hallevans.com; broughamd@hallevans.com; REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTSTABLE OF CONTENTS ‘TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...... INTRODUCTION... ARGUMENT. I. THE BUSINESS HAS FAILED TO REBUT THE OFFICIALS’ SHOWING THAT PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTED FOR THE SEARCH... i A. The Business' Argument That the "Place" to Be Searched Should Have Been Each Customer File, and Not the Business! Office, Is Without Merit. 5 B. The Businesses’ Attempt to Base Its Two-Tiered Probable Cause Requirement on Cerrillo's Lack of Culpability Fails 1. ‘The Medicaid fraud hypothetical posited by the Business shows that the culpability of the property owner is inrelevant to the probable cause analysis... 2. The case law cited by the Business shows that the probable cause analysis is unaffected by the owner's 10 Il. THE OFFICER'S SEARCH WAS REASONABLE BASED ON ‘THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES. 12 ‘A. Ina Substantively Similar Case, the Second Circuit Rejected Arguments that the Search was Unreasonable... soe 1S B. The Cases Relied on by the Business are Inapposite. ....sine 17 C. The Business’ Arguments Fail to Show That the Search Was Unreasonable... - 20