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

[Aloe]

Exactly!

It wasn't a beef, it was a steak, as in a stake in the value of protection and safety and the right to keep people off their property.

We afforded Barry that right, patrolling his perimeter with a shouldered firearm.

We just thought his energies might be better spent looking for his wife.

But then, he was all done looking for her long before that. As people do.

But then, he seems to have a different set of rules for his personal use.

JMO

MOO just doesn't seem like the new owners did their due diligence, or maybe the PP history was not disclosed.
I mean, maybe the history itself isn't a problem for them, but it could be for a future buyer, especially with all of the public interest (not to mention people still wanting to find Suzanne) opening up a can of privacy issues.

 

[PaulaDC]

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.

I would like to think that placing an order to be delivered is like signing a contract. No way trespassing could even be considered for FedEx. But as we all know BM would say "everybody does it so I did it too" just moo of course on B's response if he remembers even doing it of course. moo

 

[al66pine]

^^rsbbm
Gift delivery is another good point here. I can also see somebody sending BM a gift at his former address. I recall my mother shipping a gift to me at an incorrect address and when I tried to correct it, I learned that only the buyer/sender could make the correction. Mom was out of the country -- it was a hassle.
And we need a new subject. I'm done with this one!

@Seattle1 bbm Agreed. TYVM.

 

[PaulaDC]

Hnnn I don't agree that Barry didn't "follow" rules...in fact, it sounds more like he did follow rules by understanding that he should probably not go over to his old house. Whether or not he sent the woman "to a crime scene"....I think that is debatable. I'm not sure it has even been legally established that the house is a "crime scene." She should have knocked on the door or rang the doorbell...even if it was totally obvious no one was there in my opinion. And that is really the limit of the legal issue to me...not "whose" package it was - could have been anyone she knew and not that it was "that" house...

Do we expect he's actually following the rules because he wants to stay on the straight and narrow or could it possibly be because he has on an ankle monitor and is forced into following the rules. Don't give him too much credit for being upstanding at this point.

 

[O.Incandenza]

I can't agree that this case - People v Neckel - governs SM's case, either.

The substance of the case is not a trespass by Neckel but his unreasonable and inappropriate response to what he perceived as a trespass. Neckel was convicted of felony menacing for threatening with a pipe a process server who had entered his property to serve a summons, and of criminal tampering for messing with his victim's car, preventing him from leaving. As you might expect, process servers are privileged to enter property to do their jobs by statute - Colorado Revised Statutes Section 18-1-701 (2)(c). There was no criminal charge of trespass against the server.

Neckel's defense was that he was entitled to use physical force to defend his property “when and to the extent it was reasonably necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believed was the commission or attempted commission of an unlawful trespass."

These cases do not nullify Colorado's criminal trespass statutes. Until we find a case in which the court overturns a trespass conviction because the defendant was implicitly licensed to enter the property under common law, we don't have a case that will help SD's defense IMO.

A case doesn't have to have the exact same fact pattern to be applicable precedent. You just need a case that considers the same legal question in a manner that's material to the decision, like this one does. Simple trespass cases are unlikely to make it to appeals courts since the legal fees involved in an appeal are likely to far outweigh whatever the penalty might be. So the question is almost always going to be considered in the context of something more serious like Neckel or like the police search cases that were cited previously. But the rules the court outlines in those more serious cases apply to simple trespass cases as well. In Neckel, the court outlines when someone who proceeds onto someone else's property past a 'No Trespassing' sign is not, in fact, trespassing. That includes cases where they're authorized by statute (like the process server) and cases where they have an implied license, like mail delivery, neighbors knocking on the door, etc. These exceptions don't nullify Colorado's criminal trespass statutes, they just govern how the courts interpret the 'unlawfully' prong of the statute. If someone enters the property under an implied license, they are not entering 'unlawfully' and so they are not legally trespassing ("A person commits the crime of third degree criminal trespass if such person unlawfully enters or remains in or upon premises of another." CO Rev Stat § 18-4-504).

I think the rule definitely governs SD's case, but I don't think her behavior fits under the implied license of a neighbor going to knock on a door. She didn't ring the doorbell and she took a package from the porch. That doesn't seem to fit under the definition of a 'normal and legitimate' visit to me. And the fact that she was probably retrieving the package for a man accused of committing murder in that house will definitely not help her if she argues that she was just a friendly neighbor making a normal neighborly visit.

 

[sk716]

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.

We're all very Brad Pitt at the end of Seven.

 

[al66pine]

Buyer's Due Diligence? Disclosure?

MOO just doesn't seem like the new owners did their due diligence, or maybe the PP history was not disclosed. I mean, maybe the history itself isn't a problem for them, ....

@Aloe Maybe like you say, new owner did not use due diligence, but I imagine a home shopper whose buying decision could be influenced by the occurrence of a homicide on the prop (say, in the last 10-20 yrs) could likely find that out for many, many properties. Could ask the seller (in writing), but even a seller may not know about homicides prior to their ownership.

Since SM's disappearance, "PP history" may present a bit of an anomaly: technically, afaik, there's been no legal finding that a homicide occurred at PP. No civil action, no crim action. LE investigation, yes. But ATM, even after BM's arrest & PH, nothing definitive. Not yet.
Even if BM had been convicted of SM's death, say this week, that conviction would not necessarily conclusively establish the death occurred there.
IOW like so many issues after reflection, it's not as simple or straightforward as at first blush. At least not in thus case.

Let's say, before making an offer, this buyer was aware of LE investigation, or a homicide conviction, if trial had already happened . If so, how should new owner deal w this situation?
Oh, well, we knew there'd be some looky-loos slowing down as they drive by, so despite our No Trespassing signs, we'll just have to suffer ppl trespassing & grabbing packages off the front porch. Can't expect LE to do anything about it.
Is this the reasonable approach? (Not that you said it was).

Disclosure?
My searches ~ a yr ago suggest that a CO statute does not explicitly require a real est agent to disclose to any future buyer/potential buyer that a homicide occurred on the prop.
Quote from CO. statute:
“(b) That the property was the site of a homicide or other felony or of a suicide.
“(2) No cause of action shall arise against a real estate broker or salesperson for failing to disclose such circumstance occurring on the property which might psychologically impact or stigmatize such property…”
Reference: Statute 38-35.5-101. 2016.
Whether owner/seller's failure to disclose a homicide on the prop. is actionable is a different question. my2ct.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Buyer's Due Diligence? Disclosure?
@Aloe Maybe like you say, new owner did not use due diligence, but I imagine a home shopper whose buying decision could be influenced by the occurrence of a homicide on the prop (say, in the last 10-20 yrs) could likely find that out for many, many properties. Could ask the seller (in writing), but even a seller may not know about homicides prior to their ownership.

Since SM's disappearance, "PP history" may present a bit of an anomaly: technically, afaik, there's been no legal finding that a homicide occurred at PP. No civil action, no crim action. LE investigation, yes. But ATM, even after BM's arrest & PH, nothing definitive. Not yet.
Even if BM had been convicted of SM's death, say this week, that conviction would not necessarily conclusively establish the death occurred there.
IOW like so many issues after reflection, it's not as simple or straightforward as at first blush. At least not in thus case.

Let's say, before making an offer, this buyer was aware of LE investigation, or a homicide conviction, if trial had already happened . If so, how should new owner deal w this situation?
Oh, well, we knew there'd be some looky-loos slowing down as they drive by, so despite our No Trespassing signs, we'll just have to suffer ppl trespassing & grabbing packages off the front porch. Can't expect LE to do anything about it.
Is this the reasonable approach? (Not that you said it was).

Disclosure?
My searches ~ a yr ago suggest that a CO statute does not explicitly require a real est agent to disclose to any future buyer/potential buyer that a homicide occurred on the prop.
Quote from CO. statute:
“(b) That the property was the site of a homicide or other felony or of a suicide.
“(2) No cause of action shall arise against a real estate broker or salesperson for failing to disclose such circumstance occurring on the property which might psychologically impact or stigmatize such property…”
Reference: Statute 38-35.5-101. 2016.
Whether owner/seller's failure to disclose a homicide on the prop. is actionable is a different question. my2ct.

The most important point is that at the time the buyers bought the house there was nothing indicating a homicide occurred there…and factually it is not proven that a murder occurred there.

 

[10ofRods]

The most important point is that at the time the buyers bought the house there was nothing indicating a homicide occurred there…and factually it is not proven that a murder occurred there.

More interesting, to me, is the fact that the new owners could in fact sue, regardless.

If they wanted to. The real estate agent, I mean, not Barry. But I bet it was disclosed...

 

[Kittybunny]

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.

In my personal experience, narcissists are excellent at spotting vulnerable people who are grateful for romantic attention, making them easy to manipulate and control.

 

[TIGER0822]

Barry Morphew girlfriend arrested for trespassing and taking parcel from home he shared with Suzanne | Daily Mail Online

Yea, they were in a relationship before SM
was murdered. It was explained away as ‘it wasn’t me that people saw BM with, it was really his wife. ..We just look alike.

• Darke denied they are in a romantic relationship and told cops 'a lot of people say I resemble' Suzanne

 

[TIGER0822]

Barry Morphew girlfriend arrested for trespassing and taking parcel from home he shared with Suzanne | Daily Mail Online

Yea, they were in a relationship before SM was murdered!

• Darke denied they are in a romantic relationship and told cops 'a lot of people say I resemble' Suzanne

 

[Aloe]

Buyer's Due Diligence? Disclosure?
@Aloe Maybe like you say, new owner did not use due diligence, but I imagine a home shopper whose buying decision could be influenced by the occurrence of a homicide on the prop (say, in the last 10-20 yrs) could likely find that out for many, many properties. Could ask the seller (in writing), but even a seller may not know about homicides prior to their ownership.

Since SM's disappearance, "PP history" may present a bit of an anomaly: technically, afaik, there's been no legal finding that a homicide occurred at PP. No civil action, no crim action. LE investigation, yes. But ATM, even after BM's arrest & PH, nothing definitive. Not yet.
Even if BM had been convicted of SM's death, say this week, that conviction would not necessarily conclusively establish the death occurred there.
IOW like so many issues after reflection, it's not as simple or straightforward as at first blush. At least not in thus case.

Let's say, before making an offer, this buyer was aware of LE investigation, or a homicide conviction, if trial had already happened . If so, how should new owner deal w this situation?
Oh, well, we knew there'd be some looky-loos slowing down as they drive by, so despite our No Trespassing signs, we'll just have to suffer ppl trespassing & grabbing packages off the front porch. Can't expect LE to do anything about it.
Is this the reasonable approach? (Not that you said it was).

Disclosure?
My searches ~ a yr ago suggest that a CO statute does not explicitly require a real est agent to disclose to any future buyer/potential buyer that a homicide occurred on the prop.
Quote from CO. statute:
“(b) That the property was the site of a homicide or other felony or of a suicide.
“(2) No cause of action shall arise against a real estate broker or salesperson for failing to disclose such circumstance occurring on the property which might psychologically impact or stigmatize such property…”
Reference: Statute 38-35.5-101. 2016.
Whether owner/seller's failure to disclose a homicide on the prop. is actionable is a different question. my2ct.

I completely agree. That is why I used the word history and not homicide. At the time of the sale and for the duration of its term on the market much less was known than now. BM hadn't been arrested yet, etc.

With that being said the buyer should have known, either through disclosure or by due diligence, that one of the sellers of the piece was missing, and then made themselves aware of the then present circumstances surrounding her disappearance.

If I had been considering an investment in PP, I think I would have been looking into the finer details of the disappeared seller that were available. There was plenty of speculation for sure.

Just MOO. There had been some speculation here as to why the PP address seemed to have vanished from google maps for a bit. IDK what the consensus came to be.

 

[Aloe]

The most important point is that at the time the buyers bought the house there was nothing indicating a homicide occurred there…and factually it is not proven that a murder occurred there.

Correct, but one of the sellers of the piece was disappeared. I think that that would be important information for the buyer to know. Wouldn't you want to be made aware of that fact as a potential buyer and would it not influence your decision?

 

[Hoss569]

Correct, but one of the sellers of the piece was disappeared. I think that that would be important information for the buyer to know. Wouldn't you want to be made aware of that fact as a potential buyer and would it not influence your decision?

Wasn't Suzanne's name on the deed? If so, the buyer was well aware she wouldn't be signing any of the offers, closing, etc.

 

[IceIce9]

One of my relatives lived near a home where a tragedy occurred, two people killed by a third family member who then committed suicide. IIRC it was a mother and young child killed by the husband/father who then killed himself.

The listing real estate agent was informing prospective buyers about the tragedy. The home sat empty for a couple of years and finally someone purchased it at much less than the market value of the home.

This was in Ohio, and I don’t know if the real estate agent was required to make disclosure, or if she did for the sake of her own conscience.

 

[NWLady]

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.

Yes! I see it like that! Thank you! I was thinking some type of bulletproof vest or something!

 

[Aloe]

One of my relatives lived near a home where a tragedy occurred, two people killed by a third family member who then committed suicide. IIRC it was a mother and young child killed by the husband/father who then killed himself.

The listing real estate agent was informing prospective buyers about the tragedy. The home sat empty for a couple of years and finally someone purchased it at much less than the market value of the home.

This was in Ohio, and I don’t know if the real estate agent was required to make disclosure, or if she did for the sake of her own conscience.

At the time, Suzanne was missing. She hadn't been declared deceased. It was an ongoing investigation. I think that, and any current privacy issues, may have been all of the information required or conscionable to disclose. The buyer would then have to decide how to proceed and how any possible outcomes in the case would affect the future value of the property.

 

[HongKongPhooey]

Wonder if Barry disclosed that chipmunks were apparently a serious pest? And his method to deal with that was to run around the place shooting them!

 

[swedeheart]

Sheriff nabs porch pirate

"Shoshona Darke, 51, of Salida, was arrested by Chaffee County sheriff’s deputies Tuesday on a charge of criminal trespass after investigators identified her as a trespasser Monday at the former Barry and Suzanne Morphew property near Maysville, a press release stated."