Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #84

[Love Never Fails]

Can you throw a basketball into someone's bushes so that you can go on the property?

Pressing charges is the right thing to do, IMO. Innocent until proven guilty, let the court sort it out.

Something is skeevy here.

It's bad optics to get in trouble on Week 1.

So two adults decided it needed to be done, was a good idea, all things considered. And two people decided which person should do it.

You decide to cross a no trespassing sign, you make EVERY effort IMO to alert the homeowner to your presence. You ring the doorbell, you wait, you ring it again, you knock...

But honestly, you don't do it. Not here, not under these circumstances.

Package had been there what, a long hour? Nice and protected from the elements, from all the other nontrespassing people in the universe.

And no traffic in or out, you'd have to know there's a good chance no one is home, package is going nowhere, unless an angry deer seeks weird revenge. So you reorder or you call your realtor and you handle it through the squeaky-cleanest means you can. Because bail. Because jail. Because notoriety. Because decency. That house languished on the market until a good faith buyer came along and hoped to breathe fresh life into the place, hoped the history would fade and took measures to keep unwanted foot traffic off their newly-aquired private property.

I think we may be missing the worst point, however.

They had other means to right a legitimate wrong.

And didn't.

Which forces me to consider there was something else in play.

If you want access to a property where you know you shouldn't go, you toss your basketball into the bushes....

So.... did they order something, purposefully had it delivered there, to gain access to the property?

Whatever this was about, the new owners bought that house and have every right to expect and enjoy a fresh start -- and the former owner and his paramour put the address back in the news, front and center.

This smells.

JMO

 

[Love Never Fails]

Great great post. It’s how I see it.

ETA: replying to Megnut above.

 

[Megnut]

Early on we learned about Suzanne and Barry on a walk, Wednesday prior.

Where they encountered a different cleaning lady at a dumpster with 6 or 7 trash bags? I'm going to need some help here. I think we determined that dumpster location to be at the cul de sac. Anyone else remember that?

(Wait! What? Did Barry take offense to someone using a dumpster without permission?)

So... in May, we were a couple minutes into the dumpster fire that was 2020, lockdowns everywhere....

Which house had been rented? One on the cul de sac presumably? Hmmm... interesting....

So.... was a cleaning lady cleaning a property that had been rented several months earlier and the homeowner who rented it out thought it made wise, olfactory sense to leave whatever renters left to ferment for a couple of months,, all nice and good, before having it turned and ready? Or had someone, in fact, been staying there? Main home, guest house, either, both?

Could one or the other of the parties currently living there have been staying there in May of 2020? Maybe no calls, no cars passing that way but some jogging up familiar driveways.

Truck doors seemingly opening in tandem takes on new meaning.

Now a tip about a strange car becomes especially interesting... in light of the the timelime that feels suddenly very wiggly.

If one party has cleaned for the new property since 2018, I can't help but wonder if Barry tried to insert said party into his home, post 2018, in the form of a cleaning lady for Suzanne?

Have to ask, we had it in college, the beaten path between the male and female dorms, made that way by the morning-after walk of shame.

Might there be a wornout walk between these two properties?

Is there something to this?

JMOandgutreaction

 

[Topppps]

Also of interest is Judge (now Associate Justice) Neil Gorsuch's dissent, which calls into question the continuing viability of the holding in Carloss.

In any case, it will be of interest whether SD claims she had a Constitutional right to do what she did. My guess is that she will plead guilty quickly and preclude the filing of other potential charges. Or, that she will enter a cooperation agreement to testify against BM>

"Gorsuch's dissent" code for losers opinion, he lost end of story.

She has constitutional right to be on the property, Carloss says any citizen has the right to approach a home.

As far as she will plead guilty I personally would not.

 

[sk716]

You're allowed to go on someones driveway United States v. Carloss, 818 F.3d 988 (10th Cir. 2016) The standard adopted is this: “under the totality of the circumstances, would an objectively reasonable person conclude that entry onto the Defendant’s driveway was categorically barred?”

The court concludes that under this test, a “no trespassing” sign ordinarily doesn’t have much Fourth Amendment significance.

You're allowed to go on someone's driveway, you're allowed to go to their front door to talk to them. I would contend going to their front door to pick up a package is no different than picking a basketball that went into their bushes by mistake.

The fourth amendment pertains to what the government can do on your private property. So all of your arguments are bupkis. This is about private citizen vs private citizen.

And again, she could have been charged with felony mail tampering. She's getting off light.

 

[Topppps]

The fourth amendment pertains to what the government can do on your private property. So all of your arguments are bupkis. This is about private citizen vs private citizen.

And again, she could have been charged with felony mail tampering. She's getting off light.

It says in the ruling any citizen can approach a home.

 

[MrX]

From the first press release by the Sheriffs Office on May 11, 2020.

Missing Person - Chaffee County Sheriff
Sheriff personnel called members of Chaffee County Search and Rescue South and North and a search began immediately. The Department of Corrections was contacted and a request was made for tracking dogs to assist. They responded and joined the search. The search continued into the early morning hours with no results.

The search resumed in the early morning hours of May 11 with Search and Rescue. They once again scoured the area. Members were then called from the Chaffee County Tac Team along with search parties from the Department of Corrections and the area was once again scoured.

In all over 100 personnel were used during the search, however by late afternoon on May 11 Ms Morphew had not been found.

Thanks. I wonder if they continued, especially in light of what they learned, over time. The missing seven miles and 30 minutes before/after he ditched the helmet would make that large mining area, north of Garfield, look like a prime target. I've always been fascinated by how he could do everything possible to look guilty, yet perfectly dispose of the body. I feel like they just kept/keep missing it.

 

[sk716]

Sorry to backtrack, if this has been covered, but reading the AA, along with marking locations on Goodge Earth, I get the impression that there wasn't a huge LE ground search for Suzanne - that most of the searches were by concerned citizens. Was that the case? With no footage of Barry driving anywhere on the night of 9th/10th, and his seeming insistence that they would have caught him if he dumped the body on the way to Broomfield, it seems logical that the body is either near the home, or was dumped during the 30 minute jaunt to toss the helmet.

To the best of my knowledge the search teams went along Hwy 50 from the west end of Poncha Springs to the curve heading into Monarch. Maybe 200-300 foot on either side of the road.

 

[CGray123]

Regarding Carloss:

EBEL, Circuit Judge.

In this direct criminal appeal, Defendant–Appellant Ralph Carloss contends that two police officers violated the Fourth Amendment by knocking on his front door, seeking to speak with him. Ordinarily a police officer, like any citizen, has an implied license to approach a home, knock on the front door, and ask to speak with the occupants.

Shoshona had an implied license to approach the Puma Path home. And it's not stealing if she took a package that belonged to her. Approaching a home is not illegal regardless of the no trespassing signs.

Respectfully, the language you quote is not the rule of the case, which was decided under Fourth Amendment standards not criminal trespass law standards, and which was very dependent on the specific facts of the case, which arose from an arrest in Oklahoma. It is a general reference to a complex body of state common law which does not invalidate the Colorado trespass statute or confer any rights to SD. I am confident events will prove the accuracy of this assessment.

 

[Whitneyh]

Birds of a feather flock together...didnt take to long

 

[Puzzles8]

I actually meant petty of law enforcement more than anything else. I think LE could have given a warning and been done with it but instead made this a bigger deal than need be. I think most LE wouldn't even answer a call like this or if they did they would issue a warning but in this case because of who it is it got this reaction and I think at the end of the day the entire thing will end up dismissed if the package was in fact addressed to BM. This is all IMO!!!

Who is to say SD or one of BM’s friends hasn’t done this before? Maybe the first time they were given a warning and came back again?

We don’t know.

JMO

 

[sk716]

Regarding Carloss:

EBEL, Circuit Judge.

In this direct criminal appeal, Defendant–Appellant Ralph Carloss contends that two police officers violated the Fourth Amendment by knocking on his front door, seeking to speak with him. Ordinarily a police officer, like any citizen, has an implied license to approach a home, knock on the front door, and ask to speak with the occupants.

Shoshona had an implied license to approach the Puma Path home. And it's not stealing if she took a package that belonged to her. Approaching a home is not illegal regardless of the no trespassing signs.

The US vs Carloss decision only applies to law enforcement. The US Constitution only applies to what the GOVERNMENT can compel it citizens to do.

This is not a Fourth Amendment discussion.

 

[Lyanna]

What intention? Taking a piece of property that belongs to you? That's not really bad intentions.

Bet BM justified his actions in that way after he took Suzanne's life

imo

 

[Ontario Mom]

Am I the only one that finds it just way too coincidental that Barry Morphew's girlfriend had 2 appearances in Chaffee county court yesterday, that had nothing to do with each other?

I also find it very odd to see folks defending someone who clearly broke the law.

jmo

 

[Ontario Mom]

What intention? Taking a piece of property that belongs to you? That's not really bad intentions.

We don't know who that package belonged to, do we?

Intentionally ignoring a "no trespassing" sign, and then intentionally trespassing, would appear to be quite definitional of "bad" intentions.

 

[Chelly]

Seems to me in this trespassing/package retrieval scenario, the person who calculated risk vs. reward, was an astonishingly impaired planner.

 

[Seattle1]

I can see that an attorney entered an appearance for SD in the trespassing case, but I can't see the name or firm. Does anyone know?

I don't think the docket notation for 10/13/21 hearing type for the trespass charge signifies that SD has already obtained an attorney and/or that the attorney entered an appearance.

On Weds, SD initially requested a public defender in court and Judge Murphy advised her that she did not qualify. Her next hearing will be a virtual hearing and Rule 121 providing for her attorney to identify themselves to the court before appearing applies.

Docket for: Chaffee County - Chaffee Combined Court
Showing 1 -of 1 records

Date Len Appearance Name Hearing Type Case # Location Division

10/13/21
9:45 AM 1Hr VIRTUAL
DARKE, SHOSHONA
Appearance of Counsel
C82021M351
Chaffee County Division 2

Colorado Judicial Branch - Court Docket Search

 

[CGray123]

Trying to get answers on Colorado law as to when a person is considered "licensed" to enter property under the criminal trespass statute prohibiting "unlawful" entry. It seems to me clear that posting no trespassing signs at the entrance to a property has the legal effect of nullifying any common law license or privilege to enter. BBM.

Here's a standard jury instruction designed for such charges that may be helpful.

F:126 ENTERS UNLAWFULLY OR REMAINS UNLAWFULLY

"A person “enters unlawfully” or “remains unlawfully” in or upon premises when the person is not licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to do so. A person who, regardless of his [her] intent, enters or remains in or upon premises that are at the time open to the public does so with license and privilege unless the person defies a lawful order not to enter or remain, personally communicated to him [her] by the owner of the premises or some other authorized person. A license or privilege to enter or remain in a building that is only partly open to the public is not a license or privilege to enter or remain in that part of the building that is not open to the public.

COMMENT

.....

2. When relevant, the above definition should be modified to include an explanation of the following principle, which is also set forth in section 18- 4-201(3):

Except as is otherwise provided in section 33-6-116(1), C.R.S., [relating to hunting, fishing, and trapping,] a person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land that is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders does so with license and privilege unless... notice forbidding entry is given by posting with signs at intervals of not more than four hundred forty yards or, if there is a readily identifiable entrance to the land, by posting with signs at such entrance to the private land or the forbidden part of the land. ...."

 

[sk716]

It says in the ruling any citizen can approach a home.

No it does not.

For the last time Carloss ONLY applies to police.

Implied license is NOT what you think it is. It refers to implied license as defined in Florida v. Jardines which again, is all about police.

In short, a homeowner who posts a “No Trespassing” sign is simply making explicit what the law already recognizes: that persons entering onto another person’s land must have a legitimate reason for doing so or risk being held civilly, or perhaps even criminally, liable for trespass. Consequently, as set forth above, a knock-and-talk conducted within constitutional parameters is a legitimate reason for police officers to enter the curtilage of a house via a driveway that is obstructed by nothing more than several “No Trespassing” signs. For this reason, we disagree with the dissent that “a ‘No Trespassing’ sign should be of particular significance to law enforcement officers in communicating that they may need to obtain a warrant before entering the property.” Officers engaging in legitimate police business will conclude, correctly, that they are not engaging in a “trespass” when they approach a front door to conduct a knock-and-talk. We also emphasize that the occupant of a residence is under no obligation to open a door when knocked upon by a police officer who holds no warrant.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...he-fourth-amendment-and-no-trespassing-signs/

 

[MrX]

To the best of my knowledge the search teams went along Hwy 50 from the west end of Poncha Springs to the curve heading into Monarch. Maybe 200-300 foot on either side of the road.

Interesting - so he could have gone a couple miles, north or south, between Monarch and 285 and not been filmed and those areas probably haven't been searched.