context: The court must first determine whether there is "objective evidence of coercion, duress, deception, promises, threats, intrusive conduct or other undue influence by the police, which critically impaired the defendant's judgment."
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 633 P.2d 1071, 1077
citation_a.parenthetical: when upholding police action in that case, pointing out that officer did not claim the right to conduct the sobriety test or attempt to deceive defendant about his rights
citation_a.sentence: People v. Helm, 633 P.2d 1071, 1077 (Colo.1981)(when upholding police action in that case, pointing out that officer did not claim the right to conduct the sobriety test or attempt to deceive defendant about his rights).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 992 P.2d 1182, 1182
citation_b.parenthetical: stating that a court "must decide whether the police conduct could reasonably have appeared to be coercive to a person in the defendant's circumstances"
citation_b.sentence: See also Reddersen, 992 P.2d at 1182 (stating that a court “must decide whether the police conduct could reasonably have appeared to be coercive to a person in the defendant’s circumstances”).