Found Deceased CO - Gannon Stauch, 11, Colorado Springs, El Paso County, 27 Jan 2020 *Arrest* #52

[Cindizzi]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[katydid23]

Defense is also trying to suppress evidence from her phone and the home security system. Warrants for both of those are now posted on the court site.

How can they suppress the home security footage? I am dying to hear their legal reasoning for throwing that footage out. ....'umm, because, Your Honor, it is prejudicial to see her bullying that child before she assaulted him and shot him...'

 

[NCWatcher]

How can they suppress the home security footage? I am dying to hear their legal reasoning for throwing that footage out. ....'umm, because, Your Honor, it is prejudicial to see her bullying that child before she assaulted him and shot him...'

Their legal reasoning relates to Constitutional issues, of course. Both the US Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Colorado. You can read the motions and see for yourself in the court docs located here.

Colorado Judicial Branch

Motions to suppress are dated 12/27 and 12/28 and so they are near the bottom.

Taken together, the requests to suppress the wiretap, security, and cell phone search info seem somewhat compelling to me (but I'm not an attorney.) It sort of sounds like the approach taken by LE was "She won't talk to us much less confess. So we have no choice but to use these intrusive methods of investigation. We prefer not to use other less Constitutionally-risky methods of investigation or they are too much trouble to go to. Just don't ask us about the specifics of probable cause."

I'll be surprised if none of the requests succeed.

The defense is also requesting a change of venue. Of course, there's nowhere in the state where people don't know about the case. But in CS the repeated "memorial" services and frequent decorating with blue lights and ribbons might suggest a different venue should be used. Nobody wants to do this twice.
JMO

 

[MassGuy]

Stauch 20CR1358 Motions Hearing scheduled for tomorrow has been moved to 1/27/22, at 1:30. Questions: [email protected]

https://twitter.com/4thjudicialda/status/1481382050825314304?s=21

 

[MassGuy]

A bit of (ironic) context:


#LeteciaStauch’s hearing has been delayed… to the date, that’s exactly two years, since she first reported #GannonStauch missing.

The trial is slated to start March 28.

@DenverChannel

https://twitter.com/colettebordelon/status/1481418260235042816?s=21

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/ubercandelaria/status/1481454845672394753?s=21

"He should be the highlight of this horrible situation not Tecia," Gannon Stauch's father, Al, told me of his son in reminding me the hearing reset for Jan. 27 today in Letecia Stauch's case falls on the two-year anniversary of Gannon's death. @csgazette

https://twitter.com/ubercandelaria/status/1481454846892908544?s=21

Investigators believe Gannon Stauch was killed sometime after 2 p.m. Jan. 27, 2020.

Letecia Stauch, accused of killing stepson, has hearing delayed

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/colettebordelon/status/1481418260235042816?s=21

#LeteciaStauch’s hearing has been delayed… to the date, that’s exactly two years, since she first reported #GannonStauch missing.

The trial is slated to start March 28.

https://twitter.com/colettebordelon/status/1481422019384254467?s=21

I reached out to the spokesperson for @4thJudicialDA about this - they say, with almost 100% certainty, that’s a coincidence.

But - it’s ultimately a question for the courts, since they set the new date.

#GannonStauch
#LeteciaStauch
@DenverChannel

https://twitter.com/colettebordelon/status/1481423699702079491?s=21
Last thing - her pre-trial readiness conference is slated for March 17.

That’s exactly two years from the date when #GannonStauch’s body was found, inside of a suitcase and under a bridge, in the panhandle of #Florida.

Prosecutors argue #LeteciaStauch drove his remains there.

 

[katydid23]

Their legal reasoning relates to Constitutional issues, of course. Both the US Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Colorado. You can read the motions and see for yourself in the court docs located here.

Colorado Judicial Branch

Motions to suppress are dated 12/27 and 12/28 and so they are near the bottom.

Taken together, the requests to suppress the wiretap, security, and cell phone search info seem somewhat compelling to me (but I'm not an attorney.) It sort of sounds like the approach taken by LE was "She won't talk to us much less confess. So we have no choice but to use these intrusive methods of investigation. We prefer not to use other less Constitutionally-risky methods of investigation or they are too much trouble to go to. Just don't ask us about the specifics of probable cause."

I'll be surprised if none of the requests succeed.

The defense is also requesting a change of venue. Of course, there's nowhere in the state where people don't know about the case. But in CS the repeated "memorial" services and frequent decorating with blue lights and ribbons might suggest a different venue should be used. Nobody wants to do this twice.
JMO

I am all for the Constitution. But at the same time, if I have my own recording devices in my home, and they prove I murdered my stepson, then I think my dead step son has the constitutional right to receive justice by allowing the jury to see the footage and witness what happened. JMO

 

[Cindizzi]

Letecia Stauch, accused of killing stepson, has hearing delayed

Roster records indicate Stauch is currently being held at the El Paso County jail. El Paso County Sheriff's Office spokeswoman Deborah Mynatt said the office will not release the specific location of any inmate.

Stauch’s trial is currently still scheduled to begin March 28, according to court records. In addition to first-degree murder, Stauch is charged with child abuse resulting in death, tampering with a body and tampering with physical evidence.

Authorities believe Gannon Stauch was killed sometime after 2 p.m. on Jan. 27, 2020.

In an email to The Gazette, Gannon's father, Al Stauch, noted that was the two-year anniversary of Gannon's death, adding that's what's important.

"He should be the highlight of this horrible situation, not Tecia," he wrote, referring to Letecia Stauch. He offered his "deep appreciation for the community's support."

 

[katydid23]

Their legal reasoning relates to Constitutional issues, of course. Both the US Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Colorado. You can read the motions and see for yourself in the court docs located here.

Colorado Judicial Branch

Motions to suppress are dated 12/27 and 12/28 and so they are near the bottom.

Taken together, the requests to suppress the wiretap, security, and cell phone search info seem somewhat compelling to me (but I'm not an attorney.) It sort of sounds like the approach taken by LE was "She won't talk to us much less confess. So we have no choice but to use these intrusive methods of investigation. We prefer not to use other less Constitutionally-risky methods of investigation or they are too much trouble to go to. Just don't ask us about the specifics of probable cause."

I'll be surprised if none of the requests succeed.

The defense is also requesting a change of venue. Of course, there's nowhere in the state where people don't know about the case. But in CS the repeated "memorial" services and frequent decorating with blue lights and ribbons might suggest a different venue should be used. Nobody wants to do this twice.
JMO

"Taken together, the requests to suppress the wiretap, security, and cell phone search info seem somewhat compelling to me (but I'm not an attorney.) It sort of sounds like the approach taken by LE was "She won't talk to us much less confess. So we have no choice but to use these intrusive methods of investigation. We prefer not to use other less Constitutionally-risky methods of investigation or they are too much trouble to go to. Just don't ask us about the specifics of probable cause."

I disagree with much of the above. I think the investigators used a tremendous amount of traditional investigative techniques to get to the point that they asked for the warrants for the ADT footage.

They had originally used that footage to look for a young boy who had walked to a friend's home. Was that constitutionally risky to gather up all of the footage? I don't think it was. They had valid concerns and valid reasons to look at everyone's ADT in order to find him.

But at some point they realised that this child walked into his home one day and was never seen walking back out. Why shouldn't they seek a legal warrant to try and find out what happened to this child? They had valid evidence that he was last seen entering his own home.

They knew there were ADT info logs and security footage that could shed light on the mystery. I don't see it as unconstitutional to seek legal authorisation for that info.

This was NOT a fishing expedition as her attorneys claim. And it was not based solely upon suspicion or speculation. They had solid evidence from their initial search for him, BASED UPON THE DEFENDANTS STATEMENTS THAT HE HAD LEFT TO WALK TO A FRIEND'S HOUSE---that he did not do as she claimed.

And they had security footage voluntarily handed over by a neighbour, showing the boy entering his home, apparently for the last time. So it does not fit their claim that the state was unfairly targeting her, and basing the warrant on suspicion, rumours or rampant speculation. They had solid visual evidence that he was last seen entering that home. It is legally fair, imo, to attain warrant to see what happened to him after he arrived home. JMO

 

[Cindizzi]

"Taken together, the requests to suppress the wiretap, security, and cell phone search info seem somewhat compelling to me (but I'm not an attorney.) It sort of sounds like the approach taken by LE was "She won't talk to us much less confess. So we have no choice but to use these intrusive methods of investigation. We prefer not to use other less Constitutionally-risky methods of investigation or they are too much trouble to go to. Just don't ask us about the specifics of probable cause."

I disagree with much of the above. I think the investigators used a tremendous amount of traditional investigative techniques to get to the point that they asked for the warrants for the ADT footage.

They had originally used that footage to look for a young boy who had walked to a friend's home. Was that constitutionally risky to gather up all of the footage? I don't think it was. They had valid concerns and valid reasons to look at everyone's ADT in order to find him.

But at some point they realised that this child walked into his home one day and was never seen walking back out. Why shouldn't they seek a legal warrant to try and find out what happened to this child? They had valid evidence that he was last seen entering his own home.

They knew there were ADT info logs and security footage that could shed light on the mystery. I don't see it as unconstitutional to seek legal authorisation for that info.

This was NOT a fishing expedition as her attorneys claim. And it was not based solely upon suspicion or speculation. They had solid evidence from their initial search for him, BASED UPON THE DEFENDANTS STATEMENTS THAT HE HAD LEFT TO WALK TO A FRIEND'S HOUSE---that he did not do as she claimed.

And they had security footage voluntarily handed over by a neighbour, showing the boy entering his home, apparently for the last time. So it does not fit their claim that the state was unfairly targeting her, and basing the warrant on suspicion, rumours or rampant speculation. They had solid visual evidence that he was last seen entering that home. It is legally fair, imo, to attain warrant to see what happened to him after he arrived home. JMO

I don’t understand why the Defense has decided that they want to suppress the ADT security system reports , when back on September 9th at the Preliminary hearing they were using it to sow doubt.


https://twitter.com/shellybradbury/status/1436068714487566353?s=21
On cross, Cohen acknowledges that the back door to the house opened and closed 10 times during the window of time in which Gannon was killed. Defense attorney Josh Tulini suggests someone else might have come into the house, taken the family's 9 mm gun and killed Gannon.

 

[Seattle1]

I don’t understand why the Defense has decided that they want to suppress the ADT security system reports , when back on September 9th at the Preliminary hearing they were using it to sow doubt.


https://twitter.com/shellybradbury/status/1436068714487566353?s=21
On cross, Cohen acknowledges that the back door to the house opened and closed 10 times during the window of time in which Gannon was killed. Defense attorney Josh Tulini suggests someone else might have come into the house, taken the family's 9 mm gun and killed Gannon.

I agree with Scott R here -- I think the defense was cranking out "boiler-plate" motions at the end of the year with their motion clock ticking away. I found nothing of substance in any of their arguments. MOO

 

[gitana1]

Their legal reasoning relates to Constitutional issues, of course. Both the US Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Colorado. You can read the motions and see for yourself in the court docs located here.

Colorado Judicial Branch

Motions to suppress are dated 12/27 and 12/28 and so they are near the bottom.

Taken together, the requests to suppress the wiretap, security, and cell phone search info seem somewhat compelling to me (but I'm not an attorney.) It sort of sounds like the approach taken by LE was "She won't talk to us much less confess. So we have no choice but to use these intrusive methods of investigation. We prefer not to use other less Constitutionally-risky methods of investigation or they are too much trouble to go to. Just don't ask us about the specifics of probable cause."

I'll be surprised if none of the requests succeed.

The defense is also requesting a change of venue. Of course, there's nowhere in the state where people don't know about the case. But in CS the repeated "memorial" services and frequent decorating with blue lights and ribbons might suggest a different venue should be used. Nobody wants to do this twice.
JMO

Just remember that a judge found the probable cause necessary to issue the search warrants.

The defense is doing its job by trying challenge every bit of damning evidence uncovered.

But I think we’re good here.

 

[NCWatcher]

Just remember that a judge found the probable cause necessary to issue the search warrants.

The defense is doing its job by trying challenge every bit of damning evidence uncovered.

But I think we’re good here.

Yes, they did get search warrants. And you may be right. And, of course, a defense attorney's job is to fight on grounds like these. But in every instance of suppressed evidence obtained by a search warrant, a judge/magistrate had been persuaded to sign off. So the mere existence of a warrant doesn't mean the evidence will be admitted.
JMO

 

[katydid23]

Yes, they did get search warrants. And you may be right. And, of course, a defense attorney's job is to fight on grounds like these. But in every instance of suppressed evidence obtained by a search warrant, a judge/magistrate had been persuaded to sign off. So the mere existence of a warrant doesn't mean the evidence will be admitted.
JMO

But why would ADT data, taken from the crime scene itself, be suppressed? Isn't that what every judge and jury hopes for----objective data, than can help lay out the facts?

I didn't see any defense arguments that made any sense in terms of throwing out factual information that could shed light on this capital crime. JMO

 

[katydid23]

4th amendment==protects from unreasonable searches and seizures, and one must show probable cause and be specific enough to describe place to be searched and items to be seized, in order to obtain a valid warrant.

---We want to prevent wide ranging rummaging searches and so we need them to be confined in scope.

---Thus officer must present an affidavit with sufficient facts to prove existence of probable cause

---The warrant must allege facts to support a reasonable belief that evidence of criminal activity is located at the location to be searched.

---Probable cause cannot be predicated upon mere suspicion or speculation.

Failure to satisfy any of the above requirements is a Fourth Amendment violation.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...on to Suppress ADT Security System (D-36).pdf

[This ^^^^is a very rough summary of the request to deny evidence collected from the ADT/Cell evidence warrant.]

By the time they obtained that warrant, they had a lot of valuable evidence of a possible crime having been committed in that home. They already knew the defendant had lied about where the missing child had gone. In other words her story of him walking away from home that afternoon was not true. And she continued to lie about it.

They also had evidence that he had walked slowly into his home, with the defendant, and had never been seen or heard from again, shortly afterwards. So that specific location passes the 'reasonable belief of criminal activity in that location' test.

I think it was beyond 'mere' suspicion at that point because there had been a lot of formal searches with no success. And time was of the essence in terms of his safety.

So I do not see a 4th Amendment violation or a rush to judgment or a lack of probable cause issue. JMO

 

[NCWatcher]

4th amendment==protects from unreasonable searches and seizures, and one must show probable cause and be specific enough to describe place to be searched and items to be seized, in order to obtain a valid warrant.

---We want to prevent wide ranging rummaging searches and so we need them to be confined in scope.

---Thus officer must present an affidavit with sufficient facts to prove existence of probable cause

---The warrant must allege facts to support a reasonable belief that evidence of criminal activity is located at the location to be searched.

---Probable cause cannot be predicated upon mere suspicion or speculation.

Failure to satisfy any of the above requirements is a Fourth Amendment violation.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/04th_Judicial_District/El_Paso/20CR1358/1-7-22 Posting/Motion to Suppress ADT Security System (D-36).pdf

[This ^^^^is a very rough summary of the request to deny evidence collected from the ADT/Cell evidence warrant.]

By the time they obtained that warrant, they had a lot of valuable evidence of a possible crime having been committed in that home. They already knew the defendant had lied about where the missing child had gone. In other words her story of him walking away from home that afternoon was not true. And she continued to lie about it.

They also had evidence that he had walked slowly into his home, with the defendant, and had never been seen or heard from again, shortly afterwards. So that specific location passes the 'reasonable belief of criminal activity in that location' test.

I think it was beyond 'mere' suspicion at that point because there had been a lot of formal searches with no success. And time was of the essence in terms of his safety.

So I do not see a 4th Amendment violation or a rush to judgment or a lack of probable cause issue. JMO

Maybe you are right. But there are some points you make about the security system warrant that I am not so sure about.

You say "They also had evidence that he had walked slowly into his home, with the defendant, and had never been seen or heard from again, shortly afterwards." How did they know this?

It's hard to recall the timeline accurately this long after the fact but the timeline is important. I assume the evidence from the neighbor's security system is how they purportedly knew about GS walking out slowly (& apparently he must have walked back in sometime although no one saw that on the tape that's been released. Some posting here saw a shadow that might have been a car door opening. Most of the folks who thought they saw a shadow seemed to suggest GS exited the car on the other side and ran in quickly when returning. The neighbor thought he didn't return. So I'm not sure what we really know even now from that footage except that if GA was killed in the house, he had to come back to the house.) But that recording came to light many days after GS disappeared. This article says it was the ninth day of the search. That would have been Feb 4.

Gannon Stauch neighbor confirms security footage dates WERE correct after he was seen walking with ‘murderer’ stepmom

This article cited Feb 4 as the date also

The disappearance of Gannon Stauch: A timeline of the case

To be fair, in reality that "nine days" and "Feb 4" may represent the day the story broke in the press, not the day the neighbor and AS called LE. But I do remember many people here discussing how lucky it was the footage hadn't been overwritten by the time the neighbor found it because it had been so many days since it was recorded. And it surely didn't seem like the neighbor delayed very long before giving the video to the press and giving interviews. Whether he was looking for it or not, he had his 15 minutes of fame!

This quote from the second link above seems to suggest the neighbor searched his footage on Saturday Feb 1 or early Sunday Feb 2.

"Drayton told Denver7 he went back to review his surveillance camera video from that day as the search for Stauch intensified over the past week."

“I just kind of backtracked from Saturday to Monday, and that’s when I caught some information,” he said."

The warrant for searching the Stauch security system appears to be dated (Thursday) January 30. So it is highly unlikely IMO information from the neighbor's footage played any role in the justification for search of the Stauch system. And I'm not aware of any other way LE would have known anything about GS walking in or out slowly with LS.

Many other "facts" used in posts to justify the security system warrant weren't discovered until later. For example, no one knew a gun had been involved on Jan 30. So what was known at the time of the warrant application is important. And it's easy to conflate that with what appears to be known now.

We'll see what happens. (And if the defense is successful in blocking pieces of evidence, I expect there is still more than enough for conviction anyway.)
JMO

 

[katydid23]

Maybe you are right. But there are some points you make about the security system warrant that I am not so sure about.

You say "They also had evidence that he had walked slowly into his home, with the defendant, and had never been seen or heard from again, shortly afterwards." How did they know this?

It's hard to recall the timeline accurately this long after the fact but the timeline is important. I assume the evidence from the neighbor's security system is how they purportedly knew about GS walking out slowly (& apparently he must have walked back in sometime although no one saw that on the tape that's been released. Some posting here saw a shadow that might have been a car door opening. Most of the folks who thought they saw a shadow seemed to suggest GS exited the car on the other side and ran in quickly when returning. The neighbor thought he didn't return. So I'm not sure what we really know even now from that footage except that if GA was killed in the house, he had to come back to the house.) But that recording came to light many days after GS disappeared. This article says it was the ninth day of the search. That would have been Feb 4.

Gannon Stauch neighbor confirms security footage dates WERE correct after he was seen walking with ‘murderer’ stepmom

This article cited Feb 4 as the date also

The disappearance of Gannon Stauch: A timeline of the case

To be fair, in reality that "nine days" and "Feb 4" may represent the day the story broke in the press, not the day the neighbor and AS called LE. But I do remember many people here discussing how lucky it was the footage hadn't been overwritten by the time the neighbor found it because it had been so many days since it was recorded. And it surely didn't seem like the neighbor delayed very long before giving the video to the press and giving interviews. Whether he was looking for it or not, he had his 15 minutes of fame!

This quote from the second link above seems to suggest the neighbor searched his footage on Saturday Feb 1 or early Sunday Feb 2.

"Drayton told Denver7 he went back to review his surveillance camera video from that day as the search for Stauch intensified over the past week."

“I just kind of backtracked from Saturday to Monday, and that’s when I caught some information,” he said."

The warrant for searching the Stauch security system appears to be dated (Thursday) January 30. So it is highly unlikely IMO information from the neighbor's footage played any role in the justification for search of the Stauch system. And I'm not aware of any other way LE would have known anything about GS walking in or out slowly with LS.

Many other "facts" used in posts to justify the security system warrant weren't discovered until later. For example, no one knew a gun had been involved on Jan 30. So what was known at the time of the warrant application is important. And it's easy to conflate that with what appears to be known now.

We'll see what happens. (And if the defense is successful in blocking pieces of evidence, I expect there is still more than enough for conviction anyway.)
JMO

Good point about the dates of the neighbours video. I thought it was earlier than that. But even so, they had a lot of information which pointed to the stepmother being involved in the disappearance. They had all the neighborhood ring footage, which disproved her initial story.

They had testimony from the daughters that GS was home on the 27th. So that was the last place he was seen, alive and well.
And time was of the essence. He was missing and endangered, so they needed factual data from the last location he was known to be, and the last adult to see him was not being truthful.

I think that legal request for data was warranted and I don't see any reason for it to be suppressed.

I don't think her rights were violated. JMO

 

[NCWatcher]

Good point about the dates of the neighbours video. I thought it was earlier than that. But even so, they had a lot of information which pointed to the stepmother being involved in the disappearance. They had all the neighborhood ring footage, which disproved her initial story.

They had testimony from the daughters that GS was home on the 27th. So that was the last place he was seen, alive and well.
And time was of the essence. He was missing and endangered, so they needed factual data from the last location he was known to be, and the last adult to see him was not being truthful.

I think that legal request for data was warranted and I don't see any reason for it to be suppressed.

I don't think her rights were violated. JMO

Well, we'll see what the judge decides. Also though, I don't think on January 30 when the security system warrant was obtained LE "had testimony from the daughters that GS was home on the 27th." So far as I know HH hadn't talked to LE by Jan 30 (& according to the arrest warrant hadn't talked to LE by the end of Feb.) And I'm not sure what the younger sister said would have been "testimony" or a strong piece of evidence given she was only, what, 8? Finally, no one (including LS) disputed that GS was in the house on the 27th. LS said that to LE when she reported him missing. So I'm really not seeing the relevance of that piece of information for the search warrant especially as it relates to the daughters. But we'll see. The end of the month will be here before we know it!

JMO

 

[Cindizzi]

Good point about the dates of the neighbours video. I thought it was earlier than that. But even so, they had a lot of information which pointed to the stepmother being involved in the disappearance. They had all the neighborhood ring footage, which disproved her initial story.

They had testimony from the daughters that GS was home on the 27th. So that was the last place he was seen, alive and well.
And time was of the essence. He was missing and endangered, so they needed factual data from the last location he was known to be, and the last adult to see him was not being truthful.

I think that legal request for data was warranted and I don't see any reason for it to be suppressed.

I don't think her rights were violated. JMO

LS was interviewed by LE on January 29 at police headquarters. She brought up ( for the first time) a story about being assaulted in the basement of the home by a man named Eguardo. She said he attacked both her and Gannon. At some point she said he allowed her to go to the front door and talk to young stepdaughter. She said she had given this Eguardo the garage door code on the 26th so he could come in to the house on the 27th to repair carpet while she was out shopping, so he was in the house when she and G came home.
I would think that given all this info on the 29th , is one reason LE applied for a warrant on the 30th to obtain the ADT logs. JMO

Page 13 of AA :
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/04th_Judicial_District/El_Paso/Stauch/Stauch FINAL redacted 040120.pdf