Lakewood, Colorado — A recent ruling by Colorado’s Court of Appeals has prompted a Jefferson County judge to re-evaluate a request concerning a seized vehicle linked to a criminal case. This decision comes after the case against Kameron Murphy reached a resolution, yet his car remains in police custody.
Murphy’s troubles began in September 2022 when he faced charges related to the concerning circumstances surrounding the death of his girlfriend. Though police arrested him for tampering with evidence, he was not charged with homicide. By June 2023, he pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of posting private images for harassment, resulting in a sentence of time served after the district attorney dismissed the more serious allegations.
During his sentencing hearing, Murphy indicated to Judge Robert Lochary that he wished to reclaim his car, which had been confiscated by Lakewood police under a search warrant in connection to his girlfriend’s death. The prosecution, represented by Tyra Forbes, expressed no objection to Murphy’s request, stating that he should approach the police department directly about retrieving his vehicle.
Despite court indications to facilitate the release, Lakewood police denied Murphy’s request. Following this, he submitted a motion for the return of his property. A recent state Supreme Court decision clarified that defendants can request the return of seized property during ongoing criminal proceedings. This ruling emphasizes that as long as the trial judge maintains jurisdiction, such requests may be entertained.
Judge Christopher B. Rhamey affirmed his jurisdiction over Murphy’s case but hesitated to order the return of the vehicle. He cited concerns about the car potentially being linked to ongoing investigations into the victim’s death, highlighting that it had been seized in the context of a homicide inquiry.
Murphy countered that since he had never been charged with homicide, the warrant that allowed police to seize his car was no longer valid following the resolution of his criminal case. The three-judge Court of Appeals, however, opted not to rule on the validity of the warrant at this stage, emphasizing that it was within the trial judge’s remit to make that determination.
The panel found that Rhamey had misinterpreted his authority regarding the release of Murphy’s vehicle in the context of the homicide investigation. Based on the Supreme Court’s clarification, the judges noted Murphy only needed to prove ownership of the vehicle and its seizure by law enforcement.
Judge Craig R. Welling, who authored the appellate ruling, pointed out that the prosecutor’s lack of objection to the request and her guidance for Murphy to approach the Lakewood police indicated an acknowledgment of Murphy’s ownership of the vehicle.
The appeals court has now sent the case back to Judge Rhamey for reconsideration regarding the return of the car. This case exemplifies the complexities of property seizures in ongoing criminal investigations and the evolving interpretations of legal jurisdiction in such matters.
This case is titled People v. Murphy.
This article was automatically generated by OpenAI, and the details, including names and facts, may not be entirely accurate. For corrections or retractions, please email contact@publiclawlibrary.org.