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

[Steelhead]

Maybe the package was backordered for over a year.

Nah.

 

[Orgona]

I don’t understand why anybody would think is normal to walk up anybody’s else’s private driveway with clear no trespassing signs to retrieve something.
SD is charged with a crime because it is a crime, not because it isn’t.

 

[DBLG]

There is something under the lovely pink t-shirt, yes. I see it with my glasses on. Further up it looks like a tank top, further down it looks like something armored. Do you see it like that also?
Ballistik vest or something? Think of Frazee, when he got presented in court.

When I looked at it closely, I thought 2 things....1) bullet proof vest. 2) Man-Bra ALL MOO

 

[Ontario Mom]

I don’t understand why anybody would think is normal to walk up anybody’s else’s private driveway with clear no trespassing signs to retrieve something.
SD is charged with a crime because it is a crime, not because it isn’t.

It's not normal to me, or the people I know, or the neighborhood I live in.

Nor would I ever consider for a second, waltzing up to someone's house and removing a package off their porch.
That's what package thieves/porch pirates do, and I might get my trespassing booty shot for doing it.
And I'd deserve it.

SD is lucky all she got was arrested.
The new owners of PP might have stood in the breezeway like Barry once did, and fire away...

 

[Scootie98]

Barry is an expert at getting females to run interference for him...i.e. his daughters, his mom, his sisters, neighbors, employees....why would this one be any different? For him, next May is a very long time from now to stay off the radar screen. The odds of him getting there without a screw up must be sizable.

 

[al66pine]

BM. Free to Remarry?

Off the wall question - when is BM considered no longer legally married to SM and free to remarry?

@K9Enzo A few possibilities imo, in no particular order.
1. If SM is located alive, & she or BM files petition for Dissolution of Marriage, and ct grants it.
2. If SM's remains are located, and ME identifies remains as hers, and issues a Death Cert.
3. Thru a crim homicide proceeding, a defendant (BM or who-ev) is declared guilty, convicted of having caused her death.
4. On basis of SM being missing for five yrs, someone (e.g., BM or one of the dau's, likely) files a petition in CO. civil ct. to have her declared dead, & ct issues ruling to that effect.
5. Acting as ct-appointed guardian for SM, BM (or possibly a successor guardian???) petitions ct for permission to file for Dis/Mar, and ct authorizes his filing, and ct grants petition for Dis/Mar.

After any of these, BM would be free to remarry legally.
No time ATM to give citations to the statutes for this post. Later today. my2ct.

 

[O.Incandenza]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

No. It. Does. Not.

There is generally an implied license for people to go to the front door of a property IMO. It can be revoked (though not easily), and the purpose of the person entering the property matters. For example, do people also think the FedEx driver should be arrested for trespassing? He went up the same driveway as SD and past the same 'No Trespassing' sign.

Here's a Colorado Supreme Court case discussing the issue:

We first address Neckel’s claim that his “No Trespassing” signage closed his property to legal visitation absent an express invitation. Courts have universally acknowledged, based on “the habits of the country,” McKee v. Gratz, 260 U.S. 127, 136 (1922), an “implicit license [that] typically permits the visitor to approach the home by the front path, knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) leave.” Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 8 (2013).And most jurisdictions —although not all —have held that revocation of this implied license, while possible, requires more than one or two out-of-the-way “No Trespassing” signs. See State v. Christensen, 517 S.W.3d 60, 72 (Tenn. 2017) (acknowledging split of authority). Courts adopting the majority view have consistently acknowledged the importance of context, concluding that“No Trespassing” signs may mean different things to different people depending on where and how they are posted. As the Idaho Court of Appeals has put it, [while] [p]osting “No Trespassing” signs may indicate a desire to restrict unwanted visitors and announce one’s expectations of privacy[,] ...such signs cannot reasonably be interpreted to exclude normal, legitimate inquiries or visits by mail carriers, newspaper deliverers, census takers, neighbors, friends, utility workers and others who restrict their movements to the areas of one’s property normally used to approach the home. State v. Rigoulot, 846 P.2d 918, 923 (Idaho Ct. App. 1992). On rural property in particular, signs like Neckel’s are likely to be construed by a casual visitor not as a bar to any entry whatsoever, but rather as a deterrent to those “who might be tempted to leave the highway and use the [owner’s] driveway as an access route for their own purposes (e.g., hunting, camping, hiking, or the like).” Michel v. State, 961 P.2d 436, 438 (Alaska Ct. App. 1998).Because they are not talismans, “No Trespassing” signs are “not alone sufficient to convey to an objective officer, or member of the public, that he cannot go to the front door and knock.” United States v. Carloss, 818 F.3d 988, 995 (10th Cir. 2016). ¶ 21 We agree with those courts that hold that a sign alone does not provide the “clear demonstration[]” necessary to revoke “[t]he implicit license enjoyed by law enforcement and citizens alike to approach the front doors of homes.” State v. Grice, 767 S.E.2d312, 319 (N.C.2015). More is needed to convey to the public that the owner wants to maintain complete privacy. But Neckel employs no such measures on his property. While a fence line separates his land from at least one neighbor, there is no fence along the road, and no gates or other barriers block either end of the driveway. Nor are the two “No Trespassing” signs prominently placed. In fact, a visitor entering the northern driveway entrance would not see any sign at all before reaching the house. Given these facts, we cannot agree with Neckel’s assertion that the victim and the prosecutor misstated the law by denying that the victim was trespassing from the moment that he drove onto the property.
​

In SD's case, I think she is probably still guilty of trespassing because she didn't ring the doorbell and her purpose (taking a package from the porch) probably doesn't fall under the category of 'normal, legitimate inquiries or visits.' But it is an interesting legal question.

 

[Megnut]

We give FedEx permission to deliver our purchase, extending permission to enter our property. Per delivery. Not when it suits them.

JMO

 

[DizzyB]

There is generally an implied license for people to go to the front door of a property IMO. It can be revoked (though not easily), and the purpose of the person entering the property matters. For example, do people also think the FedEx driver should be arrested for trespassing? He went up the same driveway as SD and past the same 'No Trespassing' sign.

Here's a Colorado Supreme Court case discussing the issue:

We first address Neckel’s claim that his “No Trespassing” signage closed his property to legal visitation absent an express invitation. Courts have universally acknowledged, based on “the habits of the country,” McKee v. Gratz, 260 U.S. 127, 136 (1922), an “implicit license [that] typically permits the visitor to approach the home by the front path, knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) leave.” Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 8 (2013).And most jurisdictions —although not all —have held that revocation of this implied license, while possible, requires more than one or two out-of-the-way “No Trespassing” signs. See State v. Christensen, 517 S.W.3d 60, 72 (Tenn. 2017) (acknowledging split of authority). Courts adopting the majority view have consistently acknowledged the importance of context, concluding that“No Trespassing” signs may mean different things to different people depending on where and how they are posted. As the Idaho Court of Appeals has put it, [while] [p]osting “No Trespassing” signs may indicate a desire to restrict unwanted visitors and announce one’s expectations of privacy[,] ...such signs cannot reasonably be interpreted to exclude normal, legitimate inquiries or visits by mail carriers, newspaper deliverers, census takers, neighbors, friends, utility workers and others who restrict their movements to the areas of one’s property normally used to approach the home. State v. Rigoulot, 846 P.2d 918, 923 (Idaho Ct. App. 1992). On rural property in particular, signs like Neckel’s are likely to be construed by a casual visitor not as a bar to any entry whatsoever, but rather as a deterrent to those “who might be tempted to leave the highway and use the [owner’s] driveway as an access route for their own purposes (e.g., hunting, camping, hiking, or the like).” Michel v. State, 961 P.2d 436, 438 (Alaska Ct. App. 1998).Because they are not talismans, “No Trespassing” signs are “not alone sufficient to convey to an objective officer, or member of the public, that he cannot go to the front door and knock.” United States v. Carloss, 818 F.3d 988, 995 (10th Cir. 2016). ¶ 21 We agree with those courts that hold that a sign alone does not provide the “clear demonstration[]” necessary to revoke “[t]he implicit license enjoyed by law enforcement and citizens alike to approach the front doors of homes.” State v. Grice, 767 S.E.2d312, 319 (N.C.2015). More is needed to convey to the public that the owner wants to maintain complete privacy. But Neckel employs no such measures on his property. While a fence line separates his land from at least one neighbor, there is no fence along the road, and no gates or other barriers block either end of the driveway. Nor are the two “No Trespassing” signs prominently placed. In fact, a visitor entering the northern driveway entrance would not see any sign at all before reaching the house. Given these facts, we cannot agree with Neckel’s assertion that the victim and the prosecutor misstated the law by denying that the victim was trespassing from the moment that he drove onto the property.
​

In SD's case, I think she is probably still guilty of trespassing since she didn't ring the doorbell and her purpose (taking a package from the porch) probably doesn't fall under the category of 'normal, legitimate inquiries or visits.' But it is an interesting legal question.

I agree that SD is still trespassing. If SD were to have taken a spill in the driveway, I can assure you that the attorneys for the property owner’s general liability insurance would most certainly have cited the no trespassing signs if SD had filed a claim.

Do I think anything will come of the charge? Probably not. But SD is known to local LE, and her boyfriend is out on bond for a murder allegedly committed on THAT property. He cannot follow rules. I really think he needs more than a simple ankle monitor that limits him to a county. The rules do not apply to him, and this is a perfect example. When you are out on bond, you don’t go a mile over the speed limit. You cannot send people over to the crime scene, for ANY reason. It’s not that hard.

 

[Megnut]

So.... Barry backed the truck up, presumably to detach the trailer and Bobcat. He was in a hurry when he drove up originally, it would seem. He may also have freed up access to a garage bay and positioning the truck to block the driveway from sight.

Did LE ever impound the trailer? Was Barry ever allowed to retrieve it from the lockdowned property?

Might he have dug a very deep hole in the driveway? Buried Suzanne right there SO SHE COULD NEVER LEAVE, then backfilled it, then detached the trailer in place over the spot? And the next chance he had, bring in new rock and redo the whole driveway, which IMO was suspiciously unnecessary....

Same driveway SD jogged up.... weird way to walk on a grave. :/

Wonder if that was a typical 2 day delivery or an overnighter? Seems like even Barry knew he'd need to make it look like you ( or your agent) have a reason to be where you (or your agent) have no reason to be.

And see this is why it's so egregious and also a crime -- while the offending party can claim to have a reason to be there, the home owner does not know this. Is she armed, has she come to do harm, does she have 3 tranquilizer darts or a chipmunk gun?

There were other smarter ways to reorder or reclaim that package.

I don't, however, think it had anything to do with the package.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Hmm not so sure of that...plenty of people, when they see the image of the FedX package on another person's doorstep, will go pick it up so not sure I agree with your assessment of "normal society" or what "normal society" is doing.. I would not have given it a second thought and I would have asked someone else to do it for me if I was Barry. He knows he probably shouldn't go over to his old house. Seems fairly logical to me and not absurd. So I disagree with your assessment that he didn't have the balls to do it himself....he did the right thing by not going over there. I'm sorry that you are so troubled by the situation as it is more about the homeowners and strangers on their property than anything else.

I would never think it was okay to approach a home that doesn't belong to me with no trespassing signs posted and remove a package. Period.

Nor would I go retrieve a package for an accused murderer from the porch of his former residence where that murder very likely happened.

If you think it is normal behavior for SD to have done what she did, per BM's request I'm sure, that's a whole 'nother issue.

Some typical, normal societal rules:
Do not Murder your spouse
Do not lie repeatedly to LE, FBI, CBI
Do not commit voter Fraud
Do not use public dumpsters for your personal use to dispose of evidence, even if you are by admission cheap and stingy
Do not kill helpless animals for fun
Oh and Do wear your mask appropriately while in Court

JMO

 

[Bluebythec]

I do wonder what made BM become friendly with SD in the first place. She is certainly not one of his young sexy Salida girls and I would not have thought she was the type (too old,not rich enough) for him to consider as a serious partner.

When your dating profile contains the words "suspected murderer" the pool becomes rather shallow. ♪♫ If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with ♪♫

 

[Aloe]

No, different housekeeper. SD was/is the housekeeper of the people BM stayed with when he wasn't allowed back in the house.

And BM implicated her boyfriend and daughter in the disappearance of Suzanne? Too many coincidences. What a web!

 

[Skigh]

When your dating profile contains the words "suspected murderer" the pool becomes rather shallow. ♪♫ If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with ♪♫

I thought Barry knew her before Suzanne went missing.

 

[O.Incandenza]

We give FedEx permission to deliver our purchase, extending permission to enter our property. Per delivery. Not when it suits them.

JMO

But in this case the FedEx driver would not have had that explicit permission to enter the property since it seems like the property owners were not the ones who ordered the package. However, he's still not guilty of trespass IMO because there's an implied license for delivery drivers to enter a property when they think they're making a legitimate delivery, even if there are 'No Trespassing' signs.

Similarly, I think it's possible SD might not have been guilty of trespassing if she'd walked down the driveway, rung the doorbell, and then left (without the package) when no one answered, since that's the sort of thing neighbors generally have an implied license to do. Of course, that's not what she did.

 

[Aloe]

Durango Diaries – The Durango Herald

May 23, 2019 podcast "War Veterans"

SD joined the Army National Guard in her senior year in high school with medic as her mode of service. She was activated for the Gulf War during her first year of college and spent her 21st birthday serving in Iraq...

Listen links to iTunes, Spotify, at the Durango Herald MSM link above.

ETA: 5 speakers -- SD tells her story for about 9 mins
War veterans

And the written intro paragraph says she worked in nursing and management for twenty-some years since the stint in the National Guard.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I agree that SD is still trespassing. If SD were to have taken a spill in the driveway, I can assure you that the attorneys for the property owner’s general liability insurance would most certainly have cited the no trespassing signs if SD had filed a claim.

Do I think anything will come of the charge? Probably not. But SD is known to local LE, and her boyfriend is out on bond for a murder allegedly committed on THAT property. He cannot follow rules. I really think he needs more than a simple ankle monitor that limits him to a county. The rules do not apply to him, and this is a perfect example. When you are out on bond, you don’t go a mile over the speed limit. You cannot send people over to the crime scene, for ANY reason. It’s not that hard.

I think she was trespassing technically, but I think the act of arresting someone for retrieving a FedX misdelivered package when no one was home to even answer a knock at the door was over the top and unnecessary. A warning should have been sufficient. Sounds more like a personal beef of the homeowner that LE did not want to mediate.

 

[sk716]

There is generally an implied license for people to go to the front door of a property IMO. It can be revoked (though not easily), and the purpose of the person entering the property matters. For example, do people also think the FedEx driver should be arrested for trespassing? He went up the same driveway as SD and past the same 'No Trespassing' sign.

Here's a Colorado Supreme Court case discussing the issue:

We first address Neckel’s claim that his “No Trespassing” signage closed his property to legal visitation absent an express invitation. Courts have universally acknowledged, based on “the habits of the country,” McKee v. Gratz, 260 U.S. 127, 136 (1922), an “implicit license [that] typically permits the visitor to approach the home by the front path, knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) leave.” Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 8 (2013).And most jurisdictions —although not all —have held that revocation of this implied license, while possible, requires more than one or two out-of-the-way “No Trespassing” signs. See State v. Christensen, 517 S.W.3d 60, 72 (Tenn. 2017) (acknowledging split of authority). Courts adopting the majority view have consistently acknowledged the importance of context, concluding that“No Trespassing” signs may mean different things to different people depending on where and how they are posted. As the Idaho Court of Appeals has put it, [while] [p]osting “No Trespassing” signs may indicate a desire to restrict unwanted visitors and announce one’s expectations of privacy[,] ...such signs cannot reasonably be interpreted to exclude normal, legitimate inquiries or visits by mail carriers, newspaper deliverers, census takers, neighbors, friends, utility workers and others who restrict their movements to the areas of one’s property normally used to approach the home. State v. Rigoulot, 846 P.2d 918, 923 (Idaho Ct. App. 1992). On rural property in particular, signs like Neckel’s are likely to be construed by a casual visitor not as a bar to any entry whatsoever, but rather as a deterrent to those “who might be tempted to leave the highway and use the [owner’s] driveway as an access route for their own purposes (e.g., hunting, camping, hiking, or the like).” Michel v. State, 961 P.2d 436, 438 (Alaska Ct. App. 1998).Because they are not talismans, “No Trespassing” signs are “not alone sufficient to convey to an objective officer, or member of the public, that he cannot go to the front door and knock.” United States v. Carloss, 818 F.3d 988, 995 (10th Cir. 2016). ¶ 21 We agree with those courts that hold that a sign alone does not provide the “clear demonstration[]” necessary to revoke “[t]he implicit license enjoyed by law enforcement and citizens alike to approach the front doors of homes.” State v. Grice, 767 S.E.2d312, 319 (N.C.2015). More is needed to convey to the public that the owner wants to maintain complete privacy. But Neckel employs no such measures on his property. While a fence line separates his land from at least one neighbor, there is no fence along the road, and no gates or other barriers block either end of the driveway. Nor are the two “No Trespassing” signs prominently placed. In fact, a visitor entering the northern driveway entrance would not see any sign at all before reaching the house. Given these facts, we cannot agree with Neckel’s assertion that the victim and the prosecutor misstated the law by denying that the victim was trespassing from the moment that he drove onto the property.
​

In SD's case, I think she is probably still guilty of trespassing because she didn't ring the doorbell and her purpose (taking a package from the porch) probably doesn't fall under the category of 'normal, legitimate inquiries or visits.' But it is an interesting legal question.

The FedEx driver does have implied license in the same way the mail carriers and law enforcement do they have a verifiable reason to be there as a part of their job. The average citizen does not have license to walk onto property marked "no trespassing" just for the heck of it. If you have business with the owners of the property, you can enter, but you can also be arrested.

 

[Bluebythec]

I thought Barry knew her before Suzanne went missing.

I thought it was said they started dating 10/20?

 

[IceIce9]

I think she was trespassing technically, but I think the act of arresting someone for retrieving a FedX misdelivered package when no one was home to even answer a knock at the door was over the top and unnecessary. A warning should have been sufficient. Sounds more like a personal beef of the homeowner that LE did not want to mediate.

Was the package “misdelivered” if the FedEx employee delivered it to the address that was on the package?

The bigger questions are, what was in the package and why Barry had it shipped to his former address.