Found Deceased CO - Gannon Stauch, 11, Colorado Springs, El Paso County, 27 Jan 2020 *Arrest* #51

[ZoriahNZ]

JMO, but I'm not mad at the officer for not looking inside the suitcase in the trunk. He was called to check for a runaway, a non emergency. There was no reason to think, at the time, that GS was a victim of a violent crime.

I also wonder if going further in the search, opening personal effects would normally need a warrant due to the 4th amendment?

Obviously hindsight is 20/20 and the officer is probably very upset at himself for not discovering the body sooner. That would certainly cut me up, if it were me.

I don't see it as incompetence , though. If that makes sense?

 

[Gardenkeep]

And Seen the Suitcase but didn't open it!

The initial response was for a missing child/ possible runaway. The officer did not have a search warrant. He was only able to search or open things, ie. a suitcase, with her permission. If he had opened that suitcase without permission and lack of probable cause, it would have been a violation of rights. He proceeded according to law. I don't fault him at all.

 

[sunflowerchick]

She’s a coward!

She’s malingering.

I wonder how Landen’s mental health is holding up while she sits in court and listens to what Leticia did to her son. Landen is there and I am going to suggest that Landen needs a great deal of support to get through all this. Landen will never be the same.

I am so angry.

Please tell me she will be forced to be there and face her actions!!!

Unbelievable!

MOO

Despite my feelings about LS, and even though I understand everyone's anger here, I think we still need to understand that people in this country have rights. This is her right, even though we view it as wrong. And I think we need to honor those rights, even when it makes us all sick. Perhaps her not being there is a good thing. If I were Gannon's mom seeing her face would make me physically ill.

 

[Pianoturtle]

JMO, but I'm not mad at the officer for not looking inside the suitcase in the trunk. He was called to check for a runaway, a non emergency. There was no reason to think, at the time, that GS was a victim of a violent crime.

I also wonder if going further in the search, opening personal effects would normally need a warrant due to the 4th amendment?

Obviously hindsight is 20/20 and the officer is probably very upset at himself for not discovering the body sooner. That would certainly cut me up, if it were me.

I don't see it as incompetence , though. If that makes sense?

The initial response was for a missing child/ possible runaway. The officer did not have a search warrant. He was only able to search or open things, ie. a suitcase, with her permission. If he had opened that suitcase without permission and lack of probable cause, it would have been a violation of rights. He proceeded according to law. I don't fault him at all.

I don’t fault the officer either. It wasn’t clear to me from what was tweeted about the hearing that it was for sure a suitcase in the car. Plus, it was mentioned that the storage room was full of boxes and other stuff. Between that and the officer’s statement that there was a dried red liquid on the stairs when he returned to the house later, it’s possible she stashed his body in the storage area and moved him to her car later that night. MOO

 

[kaen]

I think changes need to happen on the determination of "runaway" as it is clear that a parent/reporter can kill their child and buy time under the guise of the child having runaway. An 11 year old without a history of behavior problems or psychiatric problems should be flagged as suspicious. I realize that kids mature at different rates but it boggles my mind that any agency would not see an 11 year old missing as a higher alert level. I have known (and worked with) 13 year old runaways. Not a single one jumped from healthy development to running away---there was usually a stepped process or fairly unhealthy family dynamic.

 

[Kiranerys]

I don’t fault the officer either. It wasn’t clear to me from what was tweeted about the hearing that it was for sure a suitcase in the car. Plus, it was mentioned that the storage room was full of boxes and other stuff. Between that and the officer’s statement that there was a dried red liquid on the stairs when he returned to the house later, it’s possible she stashed his body in the storage area and moved him to her car later that night. MOO

I was going to say the same thing. The officer, per tweets, said he didn't recall seeing a suitcase in the car. The reporters said they could see something in the photos but couldn't confirm what it was,it could have been anything.
If I were a police officer called to a runaway I don't think I would be compelled to look into a zipped up suitcase in the boot of a car even if I did see one because at that point why and how would a runaway child be inside a sealed case?.
I personally don't think he was in the car at that point although I'm not sure where he would have been.

 

[Pink2017]

JMO, but I'm not mad at the officer for not looking inside the suitcase in the trunk. He was called to check for a runaway, a non emergency. There was no reason to think, at the time, that GS was a victim of a violent crime.

I also wonder if going further in the search, opening personal effects would normally need a warrant due to the 4th amendment?

Obviously hindsight is 20/20 and the officer is probably very upset at himself for not discovering the body sooner. That would certainly cut me up, if it were me.

I don't see it as incompetence , though. If that makes sense?

Am not familiar with the laws-searches of this kind—she played them all…it’s just that the suitcase in a vehicle??? Out of place but I’m not in this line of work…so can’t speak to it. In no way do I hold this officer accountable…at this point she was deflecting their attention so likely they bought her act…all American suburban, military, teacher, housewife. Nothing to see except a missing child. I get it…

 

[ZoriahNZ]

I think changes need to happen on the determination of "runaway" as it is clear that a parent/reporter can kill their child and buy time under the guise of the child having runaway. An 11 year old without a history of behavior problems or psychiatric problems should be flagged as suspicious. I realize that kids mature at different rates but it boggles my mind that any agency would not see an 11 year old missing as a higher alert level. I have known (and worked with) 13 year old runaways. Not a single one jumped from healthy development to running away---there was usually a stepped process or fairly unhealthy family dynamic.

I agree. There was a petition to create a law, or change the law, so that a child under 13 would be automatically listed as missing and endangered even if they are runaway. It was named Gannons law, and was circulating in February 2020.

As far as I know they got the required signatures. But I haven't seen any more information about the status of the petition and whether the state legislature has any plans to honour it.

 

[Aloe]

Yes.
And if I remember correctly the AA timed out the video at Pet Smart, first arrival, second arrival and coincided it with texts to and from Al.

MOO is she locked her own phone at home, left it behind, used GS's to intercept messages and placate AS.

When she arrived home she hopped out of that truck like she was pi$$ed and the first thing she does is go in and unlocked her phone.

MOO is that she medicated GS. I think she was hoping he would pass out and she'd stuff him in a suitcase and leave him abandoned. I don't think he ever passed out on their "errands."

Yes @Warwick7 iirc she used Gannon's phone to text H to tell her that she left her own phone at home and if needed she could be reached via Gannon's phone.

 

[Aloe]

Did I miss what was on the bed, the lower part? I'll try to go back and read, it was in the picture from the AA I think, it's been awhile. Always bothered me.

Was it the Nintendo Switch?

 

[Pianoturtle]

Yes.
And if I remember correctly the AA timed out the video at Pet Smart, first arrival, second arrival and coincided it with texts to and from Al.

MOO is she locked her own phone at home, left it behind, used GS's to intercept messages and placate AS.

When she arrived home she hopped out of that truck like she was pi$$ed and the first thing she does is go in and unlocked her phone.

MOO is that she medicated GS. I think she was hoping he would pass out and she'd stuff him in a suitcase and leave him abandoned. I don't think he ever passed out on their "errands."

She actually didn’t unlock her phone until 25 minutes after she arrived at home, according to the arrest affidavit. It also says there was activity both up and downstairs during that time according to the home security system.

 

[ZoriahNZ]

Something I am not quite understanding and I think I have been confused since the first ADT info was released:

Which door do they really mean when they talk about the "back door"?

From what I understand there is a sliding door which leads to the backyard, which is totally fenced in by a 6 foot wooden fence and the padlocked gate is front facing (onto the street).

Then there is the door leading from the garage into the house which is sometimes also referred to as the 'back door' with regard to the ADT sensors.

If the discussion at the prelim was referencing the former - isn't that activity easily explained by the fact that there is an outside water faucet there? And if LS was doing a lot of frenzied cleaning, she might have been filling and emptying buckets from there? Since she might have realized that LE often checks the interior drains for blood.

Or maybe the dogs were being a nuisance while she was cleaning.

Regardless, the possibility that the sliding door opened and closed up to ten times doesn't exactly scream rapist intruder either - unless he was extremely nervous about coming inside...LOL

I guess it doesn't really matter, I just found the defense cross examinations pretty lacking over all.

Also a few people may have touched the gun's scope, but the main DNA profile was LS on the trigger and back. And it's not as if Egguardo could have taken the gun and Gannon, shot him elsewhere and then come back that night to put it back on the dresser beside the teddy bear and Gannon's picture. Another sick touch by LS, having the murder weapon placed openly next to a pic of the boy she had just murdered.

 

[Bogyo13]

Hopefully LE will automatically check suitcases in the future, they can ask for permission to open them and I'm sure in the future they will.
Similar to poor Tia Sharp in the UK, check the attic ffs.
JMO

 

[Seattle1]

Relative to the Fourth Amendment, in the early days of the automobile, the Court created an exception for searches of vehicles in Carroll v United States.

That vehicles may be searched without warrants if the officer undertaking the search has probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband. The Court explained that the mobility of the vehicles would allow them to be quickly moved from the jurisdiction if time were taken to obtain a warrant.
[..]
_______________

Rule of Vehicular Searches is more extensive but I wanted to point out how a suitcase inside a vehicle would be easier to search than a suitcase located inside a house where an individual is afforded the reasonable expectation of privacy.

Vehicular Searches

 

[imstilla.grandma]

“It means the police do not get to make the decision unilaterally to look into someone’s property,” he said. “They have to run this by a judge who will either approve or reject it. And there may be conditions attached, such as the duration of the warrant. It may not be open-ended.”
Police’s 24/7 video surveillance violated Colorado Springs man’s constitutional rights, justices rule – Lamar Ledger
*above post possibly relevant to discussion.

Gannon’s great grandfather passed away on Sunday.
RIP sir…
McArthur Bullard Sr. could always make people laugh

 

[imstilla.grandma]

I agree. There was a petition to create a law, or change the law, so that a child under 13 would be automatically listed as missing and endangered even if they are runaway. It was named Gannons law, and was circulating in February 2020.

As far as I know they got the required signatures. But I haven't seen any more information about the status of the petition and whether the state legislature has any plans to honour it.

Another missing runaway from same city. IDK if age 13 would be inclusive to proposed law:
CO - CO - Jakob Glascock, 13; Colorado Springs; El Paso County; 13 Sept 2021

 

[Kiranerys]

Am not familiar with the laws-searches of this kind—she played them all…it’s just that the suitcase in a vehicle??? Out of place but I’m not in this line of work…so can’t speak to it. In no way do I hold this officer accountable…at this point she was deflecting their attention so likely they bought her act…all American suburban, military, teacher, housewife. Nothing to see except a missing child. I get it…

I don't think he bought her act at all,I think after an initial conversation with her,his hinky meter went into overdrive and he went back to his superiors and told them that she was a lying liar and they needed to go back. I honestly can't see it any other way,especially for an experienced cop because as soon as this thread was posted and I read that she had reported him missing after he had been off school ill and add to that that she didn't see or hear him leave because she was working out,my first and only opinion was that this boy was dead and she did it. That was my very first impression from the initial report so I'm certain that the officer knew too,but he has rules and laws to follow and sadly that takes time.

 

[NCWatcher]

I agree. There was a petition to create a law, or change the law, so that a child under 13 would be automatically listed as missing and endangered even if they are runaway. It was named Gannons law, and was circulating in February 2020.

As far as I know they got the required signatures. But I haven't seen any more information about the status of the petition and whether the state legislature has any plans to honour it.

As I recall, that initiative didn't go anywhere because it was impractical to require LE to immediately treat every missing child under a certain age as a potential murder or kidnapping victim. (And fortunately the vast majority are not.)

It's already possible in most states to classify missing younger children as "endangered" based on age. But codifying by law police procedures for missing children into a one-size-for-all will cause foreseeable problems. And it's not clear it will actually help. In cases where the child has been abducted/murdered, especially when that's been done by family, unfortunately it's often too late to save the child's life by the time LE becomes involved (as it would have been here.) And children are much more likely to be killed by caretakers than by strangers.

And as I recall, part of that initiative (or perhaps another done at the same time) was to require Amber Alerts for all runaways under a certain age. That would completely change the current purpose of those alerts. So far as I know, an Amber Alert can be issued only when there is reasonable belief an abduction has occurred AND there is information about the abductor, the vehicle, the time/place of the abduction...or something. It's not just a "be on the look out for a child" alert right now.

But as the use of Amber Alerts has increased, lots of people have turned off Amber Alerts on their cell phones. (I have.) Otherwise I receive fairly frequent alerts about abductions (almost always involving a non-custodial parent) occurring hundreds of miles away. And certainly during the pandemic unless the abductor pulls into my driveway I'm unlikely to see him/her. Receiving constant alerts about the thousands of younger kids who are reported to have run away each year will cause even more people to ignore the alerts entirely.

This is a heart-breaking case. And it's natural for people to want to do something when heart-breaking cases occur. And sometimes what's done makes sense. There have been many "victim laws" enacted including the Amber Alert law. But not all knee-jerk reactions make sense. Creating laws that tie up LE and increase the number of emergency alerts issued won't keep kids safer, IMO. The key to increased safety lies in the hands of those closest to kids. And I'm talking about adults being responsible, not siblings or step-sibs like 17-year old HH. (The issue of whether HH helped cover up the crime is a different issue. But an awfully lot of people seem to think she should have protected GS, a position I can't endorse.)
JMO

 

[imstilla.grandma]

As I recall, that initiative didn't go anywhere because it was impractical to require LE to immediately treat every missing child under a certain age as a potential murder or kidnapping victim. (And fortunately the vast majority are not.)

It's already possible in most states to classify missing younger children as "endangered" based on age. But codifying by law police procedures for missing children into a one-size-for-all will cause foreseeable problems. And it's not clear it will actually help. In cases where the child has been abducted/murdered, especially when that's been done by family, unfortunately it's often too late to save the child's life by the time LE becomes involved (as it would have been here.) And children are much more likely to be killed by caretakers than by strangers.

And as I recall, part of that initiative (or perhaps another done at the same time) was to require Amber Alerts for all runaways under a certain age. That would completely change the current purpose of those alerts. So far as I know, an Amber Alert can be issued only when there is reasonable belief an abduction has occurred AND there is information about the abductor, the vehicle, the time/place of the abduction...or something. It's not just a "be on the look out for a child" alert right now.

But as the use of Amber Alerts has increased, lots of people have turned off Amber Alerts on their cell phones. (I have.) Otherwise I receive fairly frequent alerts about abductions (almost always involving a non-custodial parent) occurring hundreds of miles away. And certainly during the pandemic unless the abductor pulls into my driveway I'm unlikely to see him/her. Receiving constant alerts about the thousands of younger kids who are reported to have run away each year will cause even more people to ignore the alerts entirely.

This is a heart-breaking case. And it's natural for people to want to do something when heart-breaking cases occur. And sometimes what's done makes sense. There have been many "victim laws" enacted including the Amber Alert law. But not all knee-jerk reactions make sense. Creating laws that tie up LE and increase the number of emergency alerts issued won't keep kids safer, IMO. The key to increased safety lies in the hands of those closest to kids. And I'm talking about adults being responsible, not siblings or step-sibs like 17-year old HH. (The issue of whether HH helped cover up the crime is a different issue. But an awfully lot of people seem to think she should have protected GS, a position I can't endorse.)
JMO

I really *like* your common sense post. I’ve amended my stance on HH and her involvement over the last few days. Reading she was along for the ride to Florida upset me. I thought to myself - how could she not know Gannon’s remains were in the vehicle? Thinking back to my own kids and particularly my granddaughter at that age - pondering how young, naive and inexperienced 17 really is - just barely old enough to drive: Idk, I’m not ready to pass judgment on that minor. We don’t have all the facts yet. The sour cherry on top is the unique influencing factor of Tecia. Can you imagine being raised and spending a whole s e v e n t e e n years with that woman? A warped sense of right and wrong might result. Loyalty and compliance probably trumped all commands and demands. HH was taught to trust with no questions asked. Why would she believe her mother killed her brother, stuffed him in a suitcase and loaded him in the trunk along with the rest of the luggage? Why would she question her mom wanting to get out of town to avoid the press?

 

[ZoriahNZ]

Relative to the Fourth Amendment, in the early days of the automobile, the Court created an exception for searches of vehicles in Carroll v United States.

That vehicles may be searched without warrants if the officer undertaking the search has probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband. The Court explained that the mobility of the vehicles would allow them to be quickly moved from the jurisdiction if time were taken to obtain a warrant.
[..]
_______________

Rule of Vehicular Searches is more extensive but I wanted to point out how a suitcase inside a vehicle would be easier to search than a suitcase located inside a house where an individual is afforded the reasonable expectation of privacy.

Vehicular Searches

But from my understanding, "probable cause" still needs to be established, of a crime having been committed. Being a runaway wasn't a crime. A person isn't contraband.

According to the officer's own testimony nothing seemed initially untoward or suspicious.