What to Do Immediately After a Car Accident in Colorado

Colorado distinguishes between three levels of impaired driving offense: Driving Under the Influence (DUI), Driving While Ability Impaired (DWAI), and Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (DUID). Each carries different legal thresholds, penalties, and defense considerations.

A DUI charge requires that alcohol has rendered you substantially incapable of safely operating a vehicle. The legal per se limit is a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08% or higher. At or above that level, the prosecution does not need to prove impairment — the BAC reading itself establishes the offense.

DWAI is a lesser offense but still carries serious consequences. It applies when alcohol has affected you to the slightest degree — even if you are not substantially impaired. The threshold is a BAC between 0.05% and 0.079%. A first DWAI conviction carries up to 180 days in jail, fines, and license points.

DUID applies when the impairing substance is a drug rather than alcohol — including marijuana, prescription medications, and controlled substances. Colorado has a permissible inference of impairment at 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood, though unlike alcohol, this is not a per se limit. The prosecution must still prove impairment in most DUID cases.

One of the most important and time-sensitive aspects of any DUI arrest in Colorado is the DMV hearing. You have only seven days from the date of your arrest to request a hearing to contest the administrative suspension of your license. Missing that window results in an automatic suspension regardless of the outcome of your criminal case.

Defenses in DUI cases are more available than many people realize. The legality of the traffic stop, the administration and calibration of the breathalyzer, the chain of custody for blood samples, and the officer's observations are all subject to challenge. An experienced Colorado DUI attorney can identify weaknesses in the prosecution's case that are not obvious to someone without legal training.

When you are injured in an accident and your health insurance pays your medical bills, your insurer may have a legal right to recover those payments from your personal injury settlement. This right is called subrogation, and it is one of the most misunderstood — and most financially significant — aspects of Colorado personal injury law.

In practical terms, subrogation means that your settlement proceeds are not entirely yours to keep. If your health insurer paid $30,000 in medical bills and you settle your claim for $75,000, the insurer may assert a right to recover some or all of that $30,000 before you receive your share.

Colorado's made-whole doctrine provides important protection for injured plaintiffs. Under this doctrine, your insurer generally cannot recover its subrogation interest until you have been fully compensated for all of your losses — including pain and suffering, lost wages, and future medical expenses, not just the bills the insurer paid.

The made-whole doctrine is not automatic. You must assert it, and the insurer will often dispute whether you have been fully compensated. This is a negotiation, and having an attorney who understands subrogation law is essential to protecting your recovery.

Federal law complicates the picture when Medicare, Medicaid, or ERISA-governed employer health plans are involved. These programs operate under different rules and may have stronger subrogation rights than private insurers. Medicare, in particular, has a statutory right to recover its payments and will pursue that right aggressively.

The bottom line: before you accept any settlement, make sure your attorney has identified every potential subrogation claim and negotiated those interests down as far as possible. A settlement that looks adequate on paper can leave you with far less than you expected once subrogation claims are satisfied.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution gives you the right to remain silent. The Sixth Amendment gives you the right to an attorney. Together, these rights protect you from being compelled to incriminate yourself during a police interrogation. But knowing your rights in the abstract is very different from exercising them effectively in the moment.

In Colorado, you are required to identify yourself to a police officer if you are lawfully stopped and the officer has reasonable suspicion that you have committed, are committing, or are about to commit a crime. Beyond providing your name, you have no legal obligation to answer questions.

The most important thing you can do if you are being questioned by police is to clearly and calmly invoke your rights. Say: 'I want a lawyer. I am exercising my right to remain silent.' Then stop talking. Do not explain, justify, or argue. Every word you say after that point can be used against you.

Police are legally permitted to lie to you during an interrogation. They can tell you that your co-defendant already confessed, that they have evidence they do not have, or that things will go easier for you if you cooperate. None of these statements obligate you to speak, and all of them are designed to get you to waive your rights.

Miranda warnings — the 'you have the right to remain silent' advisement — are only required when you are in custody and being interrogated. If you are not formally under arrest, police may question you without giving Miranda warnings, and anything you say is still admissible. This is why it is important to invoke your rights regardless of whether you have been formally arrested.

If you have already spoken to police without an attorney present, do not panic — but do contact a defense attorney immediately. What you said may or may not be admissible depending on the circumstances, and an experienced attorney can evaluate whether a motion to suppress is appropriate in your case.

When you are injured on someone else's property, your right to recover compensation depends in large part on your legal status as a visitor. Colorado law distinguishes between invitees, licensees, and trespassers — and the duty of care owed to each is different.

An invitee is someone who enters property with the owner's express or implied invitation for a purpose connected to the owner's business or for a purpose for which the land is held open to the public. Customers in a store, patrons in a restaurant, and visitors to a public park are all invitees. Property owners owe invitees the highest duty of care: they must exercise reasonable care to inspect the property, discover dangerous conditions, and either repair them or warn visitors.

A licensee is someone who enters property with the owner's permission but for their own purposes rather than the owner's benefit — a social guest, for example. Property owners owe licensees a duty to warn of known dangerous conditions that the licensee is unlikely to discover on their own, but they are not required to inspect for unknown hazards.

Trespassers enter property without permission. In general, property owners owe trespassers only a duty to refrain from willful or wanton conduct that causes injury. However, Colorado recognizes an important exception for child trespassers under the attractive nuisance doctrine — if a property contains a condition that is likely to attract children who cannot appreciate the danger, the owner may be liable even if the child was trespassing.

To prevail in a premises liability claim in Colorado, you must prove that the property owner knew or should have known about the dangerous condition, that the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm, that the owner failed to take reasonable steps to address it, and that the condition caused your injury.

Colorado's comparative fault rules apply to premises liability claims. If you are found partially at fault for your own injury — for example, because you ignored a warning sign or were not paying attention — your recovery will be reduced by your percentage of fault. If you are more than 50% at fault, you cannot recover at all.

A false accusation of sexual assault is one of the most devastating things that can happen to a person. The accusation alone — before any charges are filed, before any trial — can destroy a career, a marriage, and a reputation. And if the case goes to trial, the consequences of a wrongful conviction are permanent: sex offender registration, prison time, and a lifetime of collateral consequences.

False accusations arise for many reasons. They can stem from a consensual encounter that one party later regrets. They can be motivated by custody disputes, financial gain, revenge, or mental health issues. They can result from misidentification, misremembering, or the influence of suggestive questioning by investigators. None of these motivations are rare.

The defense of a sex crimes case begins with a thorough investigation of the accuser's motive and credibility. This includes reviewing all prior statements for inconsistencies, examining the relationship between the accused and the accuser, and identifying any reason the accuser might have to fabricate or exaggerate the allegation.

Physical evidence — or the absence of it — is often central to the defense. DNA evidence, medical examination findings, and electronic communications can all support or undermine the accuser's account. An experienced defense attorney will retain independent experts to review forensic evidence rather than accepting the prosecution's interpretation.

Colorado's rape shield law limits the ability of the defense to introduce evidence of the accuser's prior sexual history. However, there are exceptions — including when the prior history is directly relevant to the defense theory or when it involves prior false accusations. Navigating these rules requires an attorney who knows the law and the courts.

If you have been accused of a sex crime in Colorado, the most important thing you can do is retain an experienced defense attorney immediately — before speaking to police, before making any statements, and before the investigation hardens into charges. The earlier you have representation, the more options you have.

Commercial truck drivers and the companies that employ them operate under a comprehensive set of federal regulations administered by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). These rules govern everything from how many hours a driver can be behind the wheel to how cargo must be secured. When carriers and drivers violate these regulations, those violations can be powerful evidence of negligence in a civil lawsuit.

Hours of service regulations are among the most important — and most frequently violated — FMCSA rules. Truck drivers are limited in how many consecutive hours they can drive and how many hours they can work in a given week. These limits exist because fatigued driving is a leading cause of serious trucking accidents. A driver who exceeds these limits and causes a crash has violated a federal safety regulation, and that violation is admissible evidence of negligence.

Electronic logging devices (ELDs) are now required in most commercial trucks. These devices automatically record driving time and cannot be easily falsified. In the aftermath of a serious accident, the ELD data is among the first evidence an attorney should seek to preserve — it can show whether the driver was fatigued, whether hours of service limits were exceeded, and whether the carrier was aware of the violation.

Cargo securement regulations require that loads be properly tied down, blocked, and braced to prevent shifting during transport. An improperly loaded truck is unstable and prone to rollover. When a load shifts and causes an accident, liability may extend beyond the driver and carrier to the shipper or loading company that prepared the cargo.

Drug and alcohol testing requirements apply to commercial drivers after any accident involving a fatality, a citation, or an injury requiring medical treatment away from the scene. If a carrier fails to conduct required post-accident testing, that failure is itself evidence of negligence and may support a claim for punitive damages.

One of the most critical aspects of a trucking accident case is the preservation of evidence. Carriers are required to retain certain records for only six months. After that window closes, logs, inspection records, and maintenance histories may be destroyed. If you or a family member has been injured in a trucking accident, contact an attorney immediately — a spoliation letter to the carrier can legally obligate them to preserve evidence that would otherwise disappear.

A false accusation of a sex crime does not feel like a misunderstanding. It feels like a catastrophe. Within hours of a report, detectives are building a case. Within days, your name may appear in a police report that will follow you for years. Within weeks, charges may be filed that carry mandatory sex offender registration and potential prison time. The system does not pause to consider whether the accusation is true.

The first thing to understand is that you have no obligation to speak to police. Investigators will tell you that cooperating will help your case. It will not. Their job is to gather evidence for a prosecution, not to clear your name. Anything you say — even an honest, accurate account — can be taken out of context, mischaracterized, or used to establish elements of the offense. Say only: 'I want a lawyer.' Then stop talking.

False accusations in sex crime cases are more common than the public understands. They arise from consensual encounters that one party later regrets, from custody and divorce disputes, from revenge, from mental health issues, and from the influence of suggestive questioning by investigators and therapists. None of these motivations are rare, and all of them are defensible — but only if your attorney investigates them thoroughly and early.

The defense of a false accusation begins with a complete investigation of the accuser's motive and prior statements. Every inconsistency matters. Every prior relationship between the accused and the accuser matters. Every piece of electronic communication — texts, emails, social media — matters. This evidence does not preserve itself, and it can disappear quickly if you wait.

Physical evidence is often central to the defense. The absence of physical evidence consistent with the alleged assault is itself significant. DNA results, medical examination findings, and forensic analysis can all support the defense — but only if your attorney retains independent experts to review the prosecution's forensic conclusions rather than accepting them at face value.

Colorado's rape shield law limits the introduction of evidence about the accuser's prior sexual history, but there are important exceptions — including when the prior history involves false accusations. An experienced defense attorney knows how to navigate these rules and when to fight for the admission of evidence the prosecution wants excluded.

The consequences of a sex crime conviction in Colorado are permanent. Sex offender registration, restrictions on where you can live and work, and the social stigma of a conviction follow you for life. These stakes demand an attorney who will fight — not one who will pressure you to accept a plea to make the case go away.

I knew my client would go to prison if we lost. Knowing that someone you care about might go to the penitentiary is stressful. I spent time with my client. He told me about what happened to him as a child. He went to prison at a young age. Prison did not help him recover from trauma — it never does. There was no place to be vulnerable and learn how to trust. Under the best circumstances, his trauma would have been difficult to overcome. His circumstances were some of the worst. It is a wonder that he would be involved in substance abuse, hiding and numbing.

My name is Lovel Tokic, and I want to tell you about a recent drug felony case: possession with intent to distribute Schedule II drugs — methamphetamine, 25 grams or more — arrest by the Denver Police Department, prosecuted in District Court by the Denver District Attorney's office. July 11, 2022. Dismissed on the morning of the motions hearing.

This was my first serious case working for The Savela Law Firm, P.C. Working collaboratively with Jason Savela was very different from my training at the Colorado Public Defender's Boulder office. We took the time necessary. We explored and brainstormed. We argued and got excited, making the case better and better. Public Defenders often do not have the time or energy — some have been beaten down, some do not care, some are too young. We love PDs and will always help where we can. But there are often limitations that cannot be overcome. Jason and I regularly discussed the case — not just over lunch, but really working it, blocking out time and using it. His thoughts helped me. I helped him. The result was far better than trying to work the case alone.

Our client was a passenger in a car stopped because the officer believed the driver did not have a valid driver's license. Everyone was removed from the car and searched. The police found a significant quantity of methamphetamine and charged our client. If you only read the police report, the whole thing appears fair and legal. I suspect the officers would have testified that way as well.

We now live in a world with police body cameras — and those cameras showed the truth of an illegal search and seizure. The main argument police would use to detain and search the occupants is the possibility that these citizens were armed and dangerous. They were not, and there was nothing to support that idea. Our client and his friends did the right thing. They were polite. They kept their hands where they could be seen. No quick movements. No anger or aggressive behavior. Nothing in plain view. The driver was sober, with all equipment working and traffic laws obeyed.

They did not make legal arguments on the street with the cops. They knew their lawyers would do that better later, with a judge in a courtroom. At the same time, they asserted their rights: 'I do not want to answer questions without a lawyer. I do not consent to a search.' And then — nothing else. Politely. Simple, polite, calm, cooperative, and clear.

Officers are allowed to pat a person down for weapons if there is a reasonable belief the person is armed and dangerous. Courts tend to defer to the officer's judgment — but not always. In this case, the stop was questionable, there was no good reason to remove the occupants other than the unlicensed driver, and the officers illegally patted my client down three times and illegally emptied his pockets. Had they followed the law, they never would have seen the drugs.

Preparation. Spending time with the file. Considering and reconsidering. Researching the law. Drafting and redrafting the motion until it was right. This allows you to be ready — and for the DA to know you are ready and will win. We were telling the truth, with the Constitution and case law on our side.

So when the prosecutor offered a misdemeanor plea — stipulated probation, no jail, down from felony prison and later felony probation offers — one business day before our motions hearing, I considered that she was bluffing. Was her officer available for this second motions hearing setting? Did she have a way to defend the police actions? Was she trying to play me and my client? I was confident in our issues, our facts, and our preparation. I was confident in myself, and in the trust I had built with my client.

My client had to make a difficult decision. Would he take the sure thing — a misdemeanor with probation? Or would he trust me, roll the dice, and push the envelope? It is his choice. His consequences. I wanted to show the judge what happens far too often. He trusted me. After making sure he understood everything he needed to know, and allowing him time to discuss it with his family, we rejected their offer. We called their bluff. The prosecutor dismissed the entire case as soon as we told them we were going forward.

Had my client not trusted me, he would have accepted the plea to misdemeanor probation — or worse. He would have been paying thousands of dollars in probation fees, treatment, and testing costs, plus the drug surcharge. He would have had to report to a probation officer. He would have had the prospect of jail time hanging over his head if he violated probation. Instead, the judge granted the prosecutor's motion to dismiss. In the hallway, we hugged — him, his mom, his dad, all of us. Instead of walking to the probation office, we went out for breakfast.

I recognize that being accused of a crime is the low point of someone's life. You are facing the possibility of a criminal conviction, jail time, and above all, the possibility of losing your dignity. Saying we understand is easy. Showing the client we understand takes more time. It is not only valuable — it is necessary to get the best results. If you are accused of a drug felony or any crime, call us. We will listen. We will build trust together. We will have a united front. You will not regret it.

The Boulder District Attorney filed a motion to dismiss a case against my client that included three Drug Felony level 1 charges: Possession of Schedule I with Intent to Distribute (heroin), Possession of Schedule II with Intent to Distribute (cocaine and methamphetamine), and additional related charges. The reason was straightforward — the police searched my client without his consent and without probable cause. The police reports and arrest warrant affidavit did not reveal the problem. The body cameras did.

The Longmont Police officers in this case were, by all appearances, kind and pleasant. Their tone was designed to gain cooperation. They suggested that if my client simply told the truth, he would not get in trouble. They even implied that a different person — likely the dealer my client had bought from — was the real target. It was a well-practiced approach. My client did not give consent to search. He did not admit to having any drugs other than marijuana. He never said where he had bought anything. He did admit to having a Leatherman multi-tool on him that could be considered a possible weapon. That admission would matter.

The stop itself began with a common police tactic: an unmarked Ford F-250 tailgating my client until he failed to use a turn signal. Tailgating is a deliberate technique to provoke a minor traffic violation that creates a legal basis for a stop. Without that turn signal, there would have been no lawful stop. The police may have found another opportunity to contact him, but they need a valid reason — a traffic violation, an equipment violation, a registration issue. The turn signal gave them their opening.

Once stopped, the officers patted my client down for weapons — a Terry frisk, permitted when there is reasonable suspicion a person is armed and dangerous. During that pat-down, they found objects in his pocket and removed them: a pack of cigarettes, a lighter, and two small containers that were not see-through. The officer set these items down and continued talking with my client. So far, arguably within the law.

Then the officer picked up the two opaque containers, opened them, and looked inside. That was the illegal search. No weapon could fit inside a small opaque container. There was no reason to believe anything other than marijuana — which my client had already acknowledged — was inside them. My client had not given permission to open them. He had not said drugs were in them. The officer had no probable cause to open those containers. But he opened them anyway, found heroin, and the investigation escalated from there.

Confronted with the discovery, my client cooperated and admitted there were other drugs in the car. He could have said only: 'I want a lawyer.' He did not — but fortunately, that error did not ultimately harm him, because the illegal search that started the chain of discovery was the foundation of everything that followed. Suppress the container search, and the rest falls with it.

There is an important legal principle at work here that goes beyond this case. The trunk of a car is the most legally protected area of a vehicle. A person has the greatest reasonable expectation of privacy in a locked trunk. And when a firearm or other weapon is found in the same location as drugs, a special offender charge can be added — one that carries a mandatory prison sentence. The stakes in cases like this are not abstract. They are years of someone's life.

The lesson this case teaches is one I have seen confirmed many times: the police report is not the whole story. Officers write reports that describe their actions as lawful. They are trained to do this, and they often believe it. But body cameras record what actually happened — the sequence of events, the tone, the exact moment an officer reached into a pocket or opened a container. In this case, the camera showed what the report did not: an officer opening two opaque containers with no legal justification.

My client did several things right that night, even if he did not do everything perfectly. He was polite. He did not consent to a search. He did not volunteer information about where he had bought drugs or who had sold them to him. He asserted his right not to answer questions without a lawyer. These actions — calm, clear, non-confrontational — preserved the legal issues that ultimately won the case. The street is not the place to argue with police. The courtroom is.

If you are facing drug charges in Colorado and believe the police may have searched you, your car, or your belongings without proper legal justification, do not assume the police report tells the whole story. Request body camera footage. Preserve every piece of evidence. And contact an experienced criminal defense attorney before you say anything to anyone. The difference between a conviction and a dismissal can come down to two small containers and what an officer had — or did not have — the legal right to open.

When a client comes to me after a car accident, a fall, or a collision and says 'I hit my head but the ER said it was just a mild concussion,' I pay close attention. The word 'mild' is one of the most misleading terms in medicine. Mild traumatic brain injury — mTBI — is mild only in the sense that it does not immediately threaten life. Its consequences can be anything but mild, and the medical research makes that unmistakably clear.

A 2010 paper by Masel and DeWitt published in the Journal of Neurotrauma established a framework that has shaped how serious TBI practitioners think about brain injury ever since: TBI is not an event — it is a process. The injury that occurs at the moment of impact is only the beginning. What follows is a cascade of neurological, metabolic, and inflammatory changes that can continue for months or years. Axonal injury, disrupted neurotransmitter function, and chronic neuroinflammation do not resolve on a fixed schedule. They evolve, and their effects accumulate.

This matters enormously in a personal injury case. Insurance adjusters and defense attorneys routinely argue that a person who walked out of the emergency room with a 'normal' CT scan has no serious injury. The research says otherwise. CT scans miss the diffuse axonal injury that characterizes many mTBI cases. The absence of a visible lesion on imaging does not mean the brain is uninjured — it means the injury is not detectable by that particular tool.

A 2017 study by McInnes and colleagues, published in the Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, examined the relationship between mild TBI and chronic cognitive impairment. The findings were significant: a meaningful proportion of mTBI patients experience persistent cognitive deficits — problems with memory, attention, processing speed, and executive function — that do not resolve within the three-month window that older medical literature once treated as the expected recovery period. These deficits are real, measurable, and disabling.

The McInnes study also highlighted the heterogeneity of mTBI outcomes. Not every person with a mild TBI will develop chronic cognitive impairment, but the factors that predict who will — age, prior head injuries, the presence of post-traumatic stress, sleep disruption, and pre-existing neurological vulnerability — are often present in accident victims. A 50-year-old who has had prior concussions and is now dealing with post-accident insomnia and anxiety faces a very different prognosis than a 25-year-old with no prior history. The law must account for that difference.

A 2019 study by Nelson and colleagues, drawing on data from patients presenting to Level I trauma centers across the United States, examined recovery trajectories after mild TBI. The study found that a substantial portion of patients — particularly those who were older, had lower baseline cognitive function, or experienced more severe acute symptoms — had not returned to their pre-injury functional status at three months. Many reported ongoing headaches, fatigue, difficulty concentrating, and emotional dysregulation. These are not subjective complaints invented for litigation. They are documented outcomes in peer-reviewed research.

The Nelson study is particularly useful in litigation because it provides population-level data on recovery rates. When a defense expert testifies that 'most mTBI patients recover fully within three months,' that claim is not supported by the data from Level I trauma centers. The reality is more complicated, and the outliers — the patients who do not recover on schedule — are not malingerers. They are patients whose injuries followed a well-documented, if less common, clinical course.

Perhaps the most sobering research in this area comes from a 2022 study published in JAMA — one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world. That study examined the long-term association between traumatic brain injury and the development of chronic disorders, including neurodegenerative diseases, psychiatric conditions, and other systemic health problems. The findings confirmed what neurologists have suspected for years: TBI, even at the mild end of the spectrum, is associated with significantly elevated risk of developing conditions such as depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, Parkinson's disease, and dementia — sometimes decades after the original injury.

This long-tail risk is one of the most challenging aspects of TBI litigation. Colorado law allows injured plaintiffs to recover damages for future medical expenses and future pain and suffering, but quantifying those damages requires expert testimony grounded in the medical literature. A neurologist who can explain to a jury what the JAMA data shows — that a 45-year-old who sustained a TBI in a car accident faces a measurably elevated lifetime risk of neurodegenerative disease — is presenting evidence that goes far beyond the immediate medical bills. It speaks to the true, long-term cost of the injury.

Insurance companies know this research exists. Their medical experts know it too. What they count on is that injured people and their attorneys will not present it effectively — or at all. They count on the 'mild' label doing its work, on juries accepting the idea that a normal CT scan means a normal brain, and on the three-month recovery myth going unchallenged. My job is to make sure that does not happen.

If you or someone you love has sustained a head injury in a Colorado accident — whether in a car crash, a truck collision, a slip and fall, or any other incident — do not accept a quick settlement before the full picture of your injury is understood. Get a neurological evaluation. Document your cognitive symptoms. Keep a journal of how your daily functioning has changed. And consult with an attorney who understands the medical science well enough to present it to a jury.

The research is clear: traumatic brain injury is a process, not an event. The compensation you recover should reflect that reality — not the insurance company's interest in closing your file as cheaply as possible.