2 weeks Ago
The federal appeals court based in Denver agreed a trial judge mistakenly relied on outside materials when he dismissed a lawsuit against several Mesa County sheriff's personnel who damaged a woman's home during a SWAT raid. Patricia Cuervo identified 17 sheriff's employees who allegedly contributed to the unspecified destruction on March 11, 2018. That day, police obtained a search warrant in Eagle County for Cuervo's property.
Her son, Jason Cuervo, had stolen a 2.5-ton "Sno-Cat" vehicle and multiple bystanders called in to report seeing it on the road. Two sheriff's employees visited Patricia Cuervo's home in the evening.
No one answered the door, but they reportedly believed someone was inside the house. An affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant declared the Sno-Cat "is inside of this residence." Just before midnight, according to Cuervo's lawsuit, Mesa County and Grand Junction law enforcement executed a no-knock entry, using "chemical shells" and munitions that damaged the house.
No one was home at the time, but the officers found the Sno-Cat in the garage. Cuervo deemed the search unreasonable because there was no reason for police to enter the portions of her property where the Sno-Cat could not feasibly be located. She also alleged the damage to her windows and doors resulted in "the additional loss of property from looting.
" The Mesa County Sheriff's Office and Chief Judge Brian Flynn are named in an ACLU lawsuit on Tuesday, April 27, 2021, by a woman who claims she was wrongly held for 15 days, in violation of her constitutional rights, over a warrant from Boulder County. In Boulder she was released on her personal recognizance before the charge was soon dropped. U.
S. District Court Senior Judge William J. Martínez, in addressing the defendants' motion to dismiss, leaned on an "after-action" report from the Grand Junction Police Department that Cuervo submitted elsewhere during the proceedings.
The unsigned document noted Jason Cuervo "was believed to be barricaded in the residence" and "had access to weapons with a significant criminal history rising to the level of SWAT." The report demonstrates "law enforcement believed that Jason Cuervo or some other unknown individual was in the home at the Property at the time of the search, necessitating a protective sweep," Martínez wrote in concluding the defendants had not violated Patricia Cuervo's clear constitutional rights. On appeal to the U.
S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, Cuervo's lawyer argued he only submitted the police report to illustrate his efforts to precisely allege a legal claim. It was not intended as evidence.
Decided: August 30, 2024 Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for Colorado Ruling: 3-0 Judges: Joel M.
Carson III (author) Jerome A. Holmes Carolyn B. McHugh Background: Judge again dismisses lawsuit against Mesa County deputies for $50,000 in home damage "That report is the only source for them to believe there was someone armed the house, is that correct?" asked Judge Carolyn B.
McHugh during oral arguments last year. "It looks to me like it hinges pretty closely on whether or not the district court can properly consider that report." "I do think that's very fair," responded Cuervo's attorney, Sean M.
McDermott. The members of the three-judge appellate panel were otherwise sympathetic to Cuervo’s claim that the destructive search of her home was unreasonable in light of the fact that the Sno-Cat could have only been in the garage. McHugh asked whether police can immediately resort to SWAT action if a suspected person inside a home does not answer the door.
No, responded attorney Chris W. Brophy for the defendants, but "officers are still entitled to conduct a protective sweep." "I'll give you that, but their protective sweep can be conducted by shooting canisters of tear gas and chemicals inside? Isn't that excessive?" pressed Judge Joel M.
Carson III. "I mean, how far can we go? If my grandmother's at my house and didn't come answer the door, are you gonna teargas her?" "There's 'can you enter' and there's 'how you enter'," added McHugh. "It's not a meth lab.
It's a stolen Sno-Cat." The panel ultimately agreed with Cuervo that Martínez made a mistake by dismissing her lawsuit by looking to a source outside the complaint itself — the unsigned after-action report. Instead, the allegations credibly showed the defendants searched a place where the Sno-Cat could not possibly fit and used force in the absence of any threat.
"And insofar as Plaintiff alleges that officers damaged her property," wrote Carson in the Aug. 30 opinion , "decades of jurisprudence clearly establishes that Defendants violated the Fourth Amendment by forcibly entering and destroying Plaintiff’s property without knocking and announcing." The case is Cuervo v.
Sorenson et al..
