Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #23

[lamlawindy]

Can you give us a clue as to other cases where a longer search of a house led to evidence being suppressed?

I absolutely don't think this was an overly long search, during CoVid and in Colorado's mountains. But then, my family is from that area and I'd say everything is slower.

Besides, it's possibly that two things happened: Judge issued warrant AND BM, like John Ramsey, also signed paperwork to allow the search. Or gave verbal permission more or less to say "however long it takes."

Most people with missing spouses would say "however long it takes," if they thought it could help find their wives. I seriously doubt any judge is going to be upset if both of those things happened.

I have a very strong feeling that LE and the DA are in close touch with the Judge. Just a hunch. Based on years of working in the legal systems of the Western U.S. Especially more recently - everyone is very concerned about proper and legal investigations.

At any rate, I've never heard of any cases where evidence gained via a search warrant was suppressed because it took over a week to obtain. I'd be very interested in knowing about cases where length of time of a search, alone, resulted in suppressed evidence.

We aren't allowed to sleuth the daughters, and I'm not sure what their situation has to do with evidence suppression.

Judges don't have to ask the household members' permission before signing a search warrant, do they? In this case, I do believe LE probably asked the remaining Morphews, especially on that first evening. But to collect all the evidence needed, from everyone's phones and computers.

I suspect that initially, most people asked voluntarily shared their phone data about Suzanne's whereabouts on the day she went missing.

If the search was done pursuant to a warrant, the burden would be on the defendant to demonstrate that the search was "too long" and, accordingly, unreasonable. If the defendant, though, is challenging the seizure of the house (pre-warrant) & being forbidden from entering his home so that a warrant can be sought, then the burden would be on the government to show that the seizure was reasonable. Length of the search -- pursuant to a warrant -- is not what I've been referring to.

I'm somewhat confused: Wasn't there a contention that the home was seized for ten days prior to investigators obtaining a warrant?

 

[lamlawindy]

The time in question is the alleged denied access by LE for 10 days prior to the search warrant issued. (BM could have consented to stay away from the home assist LE with the investigation).

There's nothing wrong with LE taking custody of the home once the warrant in hand as they had the legal authority to do so. I see no challenge to the entire search warrant in a court proceeding. MOO

I do. If he was specifically denied access to his residence for 10 days before a warrant was granted and
he moves to suppress any evidence found, he can argue that the evidence was fruit of the poisonous tree (the illegal seizure). Of course, if he agreed to stay away, then he can't then claim that the evidence is fruit of the illegal search because he agreed to the ten-day seizure.

 

[TxGidget]

While it's certainly possible that's their situation, the lack of her friends coming out isn't a slam dunk indicator of him controlling his wife's life. Some people are happy (and so relieved!) with their lives not being filled with "friends" and social activity. There's nothing sad about it and it doesn't warrant pity or suspicion - not necessarily anyway. I know there are lonely people out there who wish they had friends and social lives. I specifically mean that there are plenty of people that are content and delighted with our immediate family as our best friends and then peripherally, maybe a couple of not-so-close friends or acquaintances for an occasional outing or adventure. My DH is the social butterfly, I am very much the opposite. He'd be gutted to think anyone thought he was a controlling spouse. He'd be gutted, but I'd laugh and laugh.

The internet is a good thing for people like me because it's just about all that we can handle of human interaction most times.
I'm thankful for Websleuths, lol.

It's possible that BM is the controlling personality that people talk about, but it's also possible that SM felt her life was exactly as she wanted. Regardless of sex, there are many people who prefer their partner to be the take-charge type. In a perfect world, taking charge isn't the same thing as controlling. :/.

I agree with all of this. Some people can handle (and prefer) a lot of daily activity, action and plans. Lots of travel, tons of friends, and a calendar choked full of plans. Some of my favorite friends operate this way. For others,
family, home and maybe one or two activities (golf, bridge, church, whatever) are their personal max and constitute a full life. Any more would be too much and overwhelming. I lean towards this category and have purposely simplified my life. Especially in light of her health issues, I’d bet this might be the case with SM. JMO.

 

[TIGER0822]

Welcome! I am new too.
From what I have seen, people who leave of their own accord and suddenly find themselves the subject of international headlines, find away to reassure LE of their safety and LE respects their privacy. Shutting down the media attention quickly gives them a better chance at the anonymity or fresh start they desire.

IMO it is highly unlikely she left of own accord, but of course, not impossible.[/QUOTE

Suzanne was a vibrant indivi

It was the family (TN) that told media that the bike was recovered on the date that SM went missing. He did not say who located the bike. LE has never confirmed the bike was found or that it was missing or that SM even rode the bike on May 10.

..and then we had the bizarre request from TN asking the public to ask LE “what condition the bike was found in”. The equally bizarre statement from LE stating the SM reportedly went on a bike ride, and they gave nothing about a description of the bike or whether said bike was found. There was BM telling TD with great elaboration exactly where the bike was found and what position the bike wheel was in, before hurriedly checking himself. BM complained that ten people handled the bike, although it is very unclear if he was at the scene of the search when the bike was allegedly found. It makes my head spin even thinking about it.

 

[10ofRods]

No, that's not what I meant: It's my opinion that the court will address only property in Indiana & will not address any Colorado property. I was replying to @oviedo's concern regarding the guardianship and non-Indiana property.

The reason for this is chiefly that an Indiana court is not well-prepared to handle supervision of an estate that includes marital assets (and land) in Colorado. This isn't a criticism of Judge Casati, who is a very good judge, but the reality that oversight of an estate is more efficient and proper in the state where the parties are domiciled.

I think it's strictly a matter of legal jurisdiction, not a matter of whether Indiana courts are prepared.

It's a legal matter and states have their own laws - it's not merely about efficiency.

 

[lamlawindy]

So you’re saying LE violated his constitutional rights by denying him access to the home? If so, can the entire search warrant be challenged in a court proceeding? TIA

Not necessarily. I'm saying that if he wanted to enter his home but officers would not let him do so for ten days while they were supposedly seeking a search warrant, then the evidence could be suppressed. Of course, if he agreed to stay away for those ten days, then he cannot complain about that seizure.

 

[Seattle1]

I do. If he was specifically denied access to his residence for 10 days before a warrant was granted and
he moves to suppress any evidence found, he can argue that the evidence was fruit of the poisonous tree (the illegal seizure). Of course, if he agreed to stay away, then he can't then claim that the evidence is fruit of the illegal search because he agreed to the ten-day seizure.

No, that's not what I said. It's been alleged here on the thread that BM was denied access, and somebody even claimed the house was seized-- prompting SillyBilly to post that there is no evidence the house was under seizure or custody of LE prior to the warrant -- or that BM has ever been barred from the house unless it was in custody by legal authority.

Let me be clear, that until proven otherwise, I believe that BM most likely consented to stay away from his residence to be of assistance to LE.

BM believed his wife was abducted and probably did not want to destroy evidence as he alleges LE did with SM's bike when they allowed 10 people to touch it.

MOO

 

[lamlawindy]

I think it's strictly a matter of legal jurisdiction, not a matter of whether Indiana courts are prepared.

It's a legal matter and states have their own laws - it's not merely about efficiency.

But there's a reason for laws limiting & establishing jurisdiction. Sometimes those reasons are good, sometimes not. I have found it to be a good practice when explaining a legal concept to include the practical reason for said concept.

 

[Kimmer]

ok now I am confused
are we thinking that it took 10 days to get the search warrant and that prior to that BM did not give consent to search? or
that they had a valid search warrant and it took 10 days to do the search?
sorry but I am getting myself confused.

 

[lamlawindy]

No, that's not what I said. It's been alleged here on the thread that BM was denied access, and somebody even claimed the house was seized-- prompting SillyBilly to post that there is no evidence the house was under seizure or custody of LE prior to the warrant.

Let me be clear, that until proven otherwise, I believe that BM most likely consented to stay away from his residence to be of assistance to LE.

BM believed his wife was abducted and probably did not want to destroy evidence as he alleges LE did with SM's bike when they allowed 10 people to touch it.

MOO

Ah! That makes much more sense. I think that the scenario you've stated is much more likely.

 

[lamlawindy]

ok now I am confused
are we thinking that it took 10 days to get the search warrant and that prior to that BM did not give consent to search? or
that they had a valid search warrant and it took 10 days to do the search?
sorry but I am getting myself confused.

@Seattle1 explained the issue:
"It's been alleged here on the thread that BM was denied access, and somebody even claimed the house was seized-- prompting @sillybilly to post that there is no evidence the house was under seizure or custody of LE prior to the warrant."

 

[Boxer]

yea and rain ruins the bike marks on the gravel but not mountain lion tracks. and I still cant get over the fact he actually said a mountain lion came walking around where LE was parked I see them all the time just walking down the road. Dont you?

Notorius extroverts.

 

[BeckyF]

The time in question is the alleged denied access by LE for 10 days prior to the search warrant issued. (BM could have consented to stay away from the home assist LE with the investigation).

There's nothing wrong with LE taking custody of the home once the warrant in hand as they had the legal authority to do so. I see no challenge to the entire search warrant in a court proceeding. MOO

Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Sillybilly]

yea and rain ruins the bike marks on the gravel but not mountain lion tracks. and I still cant get over the fact he actually said a mountain lion came walking around where LE was parked I see them all the time just walking down the road. Dont you?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your post, but I don't recall that BM claimed there were mountain lion tracks that rain did not wash away.

 

[Sillybilly]

@Seattle1 explained the issue:
"It's been alleged here on the thread that BM was denied access, and somebody even claimed the house was seized-- prompting @sillybilly to post that there is no evidence the house was under seizure or custody of LE prior to the warrant."

I think this is my post that you are referring to:

There have been posts removed due to stating the Morphew home was taped off within 5 or 6 hours of Suzanne being reported missing.

For the record, while BM may not have stayed at the home since he returned Sunday night, May 10, the earliest article I can find that makes reference to the home being cordoned off is dated Tuesday, May 19 which appears to be the same date the home was cordoned off.

Please post responsibly by checking your facts before posting and don't post misinformation or rumors.

And if anyone insists on a link

Authorities cordon off home of missing Chaffee County woman

It was big news May 19. Had it happened earlier it would have been big news earlier.

 

[al66pine]

More fun than reading IRS publications or federal income tax code ?

I knew nothing about the Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act ("UGPPA") adopted in several other states until this case, and BM filing for Guardianship when the ward (SM) would not be present threw me for weeks!!

@Seattle1 Thx for your post. I did not drill down very far in searching for UGPPA legislative history but believe all except a few states have adopted it.

Ditto, the Uniform Law Commission's 2007 proposal, Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act (AGPPJA)*, which expands the earlier UGPPA, to address three major interstate jurisdictional issues, per map and table at link** a two page summary of AGPPJA. IIRC, SM and BM hold some other IN properties, making me wonder if he will seek perm. gdnship for any future transactions re those properties. Or if he would wait until,a specific need arises.

But if BM wants to liquidate any CO. jt. assets (bank a/c, brokerage a/c, etc?) or assets in SM's name only (IRA, etc?), seems CO would be the appropriate state. Esp'ly for jointly held CO. real est (Puma Path home?).

The AGPPJA provides for transfers of guardianship from one state's ct to another state, so not all issues need to be revisited heard again. IN adopted AGPPJA in 2011 and CO in 2008, so a transfer is conceivable. my2cts.

_____________________________________________________
* Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act - Uniform Law Commission
** https://www.uniformlaws.org/HigherL...c69-7cf0-924f-96c9-b9f7919fbb35&forceDialog=0

 

[10ofRods]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your post, but I don't recall that BM claimed there were mountain lion tracks that rain did not wash away.

I believe you are right - if he said it, there's no record of it in the media thread. He did mention rain (it rained less than a 10th of an inch at around 10 am on May 11 - no rain on May 10 according to local weather services, and very little on May 11 - none throughout the rest of the search).

As mentioned upthread, if it *had* rained, it would have made lion scent stronger, most likely ( a dog handler's opinion, here on WS).

 

[Kimmer]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your post, but I don't recall that BM claimed there were mountain lion tracks that rain did not wash away.

BM said that after every officer in town touched the bike, that it had rained and messed up the bike tracks, but then he went into talking about the possible mountain lion attack. My perception was that if the rain washed out bike tracks would it not have done the same to lion tracks. I personally dont think there was a bike or any 4 legged animals involved..2 legged animals high probability.

 

[Sillybilly]

BM said that after every officer in town touched the bike, that it had rained and messed up the bike tracks, but then he went into talking about the possible mountain lion attack. My perception was that if the rain washed out bike tracks would it not have done the same to lion tracks. I personally dont think there was a bike or any 4 legged animals involved..2 legged animals high probability.

It was the way your post was worded that gave an impression that BM claimed there were mountain lion tracks.

Also I believe he claimed that ten people touched the bike, not that "every officer in town touched the bike".

We can't play fast and loose with facts. If we are going to attribute words to an individual and state them as fact, we have to quote them properly.

 

[al66pine]

Well, remember that the Petition asked the court to take judicial notice of the MSM coverage of the search for Suzanne. In other words, there needn't be any independent "reasonable inquiry," IMHO. The court, no doubt, was able to see for itself that a diligent search was conducted by Chaffee County authorities.

@lamlawindy bbm Thx for your post. I recall your post on judicial notice from a few days/a week ago, but do not recall having seen the petition itself, nor findings of fact/ruling on law. Nit doubting you, just curious to read the pleadings and other available filings for myself.
Is there a link for either, without a paywall? Anyone? thx in adv.