The Colorado Supreme Court on Oct. 12 reversed a Larimer County judge’s order barring prosecutors from using a seized firearm and statements by Justin Winter Vanpelt, who is charged in connection with two road-rage shootings in 2024. Vanpelt faces attempted murder, possessing a weapon as a prior offender and related charges. The high court concluded that police could reasonably take a handgun from him for officer safety and that his statements during questioning were voluntary. The ruling overturns District Court Judge Sarah B. Cure’s decision to exclude that evidence. The case began in July 2024, when a driver in a vehicle without license plates fled a Loveland police traffic stop. After an officer ended the pursuit under safety protocols, another motorist followed and photographed the vehicle’s occupants. The fleeing driver fired at that motorist’s car, according to the court record. Near Dacono, the same driver later shot a tire on another vehicle. Police identified Vanpelt from photographs and obtained an arrest warrant. Five days after the shootings, officers in Trinidad found him unconscious in a parking lot with a handgun resting on his prosthetic leg. An officer took the gun before Vanpelt woke. Police later brought him to jail, and officers from Loveland questioned him the next day. Vanpelt’s attorney sought to suppress the gun and his statements. Cure found the warrantless gun seizure unreasonable, noting that being slumped over did not, by itself, establish that Vanpelt was dangerous. She also found that the Miranda warning was incomplete and that a sergeant’s assurances about helping deliver an apology letter led Vanpelt to believe the letter could reach the judge in his case. Justice Brian D. Boatright, writing for the Supreme Court, disagreed with Cure’s interpretation of the conversation. He said the sergeant had agreed to deliver the letter to the shooting victims, not to the judge, and had only said he would be present in court. The court also said Trinidad officers could have viewed the gun as a safety risk or believed Vanpelt might have been driving under the influence. The justices acknowledged that Vanpelt was in custody and had not received a complete Miranda warning. But Boatright wrote that officers did not threaten him, the interrogation methods were proper, and Vanpelt was mentally alert and experienced with the criminal justice system. The court therefore found his statements voluntary. The Supreme Court did not review Cure’s separate decision to bar an identification by the second shooting victim. The victim had initially been unable to pick Vanpelt from a photo lineup, then identified him as the likeliest suspect after the lead detective confirmed Vanpelt was police’s focus. The victim later saw Vanpelt’s face in news and social media coverage before a second lineup; prosecutors had conceded that lineup was effectively useless. The Supreme Court said the rules governing the appeal did not allow it to consider the identification issue.