silverio nuanez verified complaint

8/13/2019 Silverio Nuanez Verified Complaint

1/10

DISTRICT COURT, BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADOCourt Address: Boulder County Justice Center1777 Sixth StreetBoulder, Colorado 80302Court Phone: (303) 441-3750PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,Plaintiff, vs.SILVARIO NUANEZ THE ESTATE OF ELAINEMANESS THE RESIDENCE AND PROPERTYLOCATED AT 330 COLLYER, LONGMONT, CO., ANDANY OTHER UNKNOWN PERSONS, BUSINESSES,PARTNERSHIPS AND CORPORATIONS HAVING ANYINTEREST IN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THISACTION,

Defendant( s)Attorney Name:

COURT USE ONLY

Attorney Phone:Attorney Fax:Attorney E-mail:

Nicole A. Mor, #42332Deputy District AttorneyBoulder County Justice Center1777 Sixth StBoulder, CO 80302(303) 441-3793(303) 441-4703nmorbouldercountv.or2:

Case No:Division:

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

The People, through District Attorney Stanley L. Garnett (the District Attorney ), respectfullysubmit this Verified Complaint against Defendants and upon information and belief, state andaver as follows:NATURE OF THIS ACTION

1. A residential property located at 330 Collyer Street, Longmont, Colorado, that is ownedby Silvario Ralph Nuanez ( Mr. Nuanez ) and the Estate of

Elaine Maness, ( TheEstate ) (together, Mr. Nuanez and Estate ) has become and is a dangerous andunlawful nuisance. That property, including the home located on it, is a place whereknown parolees and others congregate; where assaults and other physical disturbances,narcotics use and distribution, and other ilegal conduct occurs with unusual andincreasing frequency; and where neighbors reasonably believe themselves to bethreatened in the use and enjoyment of their own properties and public places around theproperty. By this Verified Complaint, the People seek declarative, injunctive, and otherrelief to declare the property of Mr. Nuanez and Estate a class two public nuisance underC.R.S. 16-13-304, require that the property be seized and closed, limiting occupancy toMr. Nuanez and a few others, and sharply limit who and how many people may come andgo onto the property.


2/10

JURISDICTION & VENUE2. An action to abate a public nuisance may be brought by the District Attorney in the name

of the People of the State of Colorado. C.R.S. 16-13-307(4). This Court has subjectmatter jurisdiction over this matter under C.R.S. 13-51-101 et seq., 16-13-307(2), andC.R.C.P.57.

3. Venue is proper under C.R.S. 16-13-307(2), C.R.C.P. 98(a) and (c)(l) in that allindividual defendants reside in and the property affected is situated in, Boulder County,Colorado.PARTIES

4. The People are the People of the State, of Colorado and are represented by Stanley L.Garnett, the District Attorney of the Twentieth Judicial District. The Offce of theDistrict Attorney for the Twentieth Judicial District is a seizing agency within themeaning ofC.R.S. 16-13-301(2.7).

5. Mr. Nuanez resides at 330 Collyer Street, in the City ofLongmont, Boulder County,

Colorado.6. Elaine Maness passed away in 2009, and her portion ofthe residence located at 330Collyer Street, in the City of Longmont, Boulder County, Colorado, is now property of

her Estate.

7. The subject matter of this action is the real property situated at N 1/2 Lot 4, Block 67,Longmont OT, also known as 330 Collyer Street, in the City of Longmont, BoulderCounty, Colorado (the Property ). The Property is real property within the meaningofC.R.S. 16-13-301(2.6). Mr. Nuanez and Estate have a pecuniary interest in andoccupy a home on the Property. It is unkown whether any other person or businessassociation has a property interest in the Property.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS8. From time to time, other family members and their associates also reside, are guests, orare permitted to be present, at the Property (the Nuanez Associates ), and include, but

are not limited to: Richard WaIn, Merce Gonzalez, AnthonyJordan Gutierrez, Porfiro

Jason Gonzalez, Palmer Pacheco, Sharmane Trout,Cherish Fortier, Jaime Harrs,

Brigette Montez, Jody Sandoval, Stacia Kendrick, Ronnie Casias, Teresa Butcher,Chrsta Adams, Roy Trujilo, John Silva, Elizabeth Sias, Walter Sweasey, and SandraMaldanado aka: Sandra Vidales, their acquaintances, and people who are known by lawenforcement authorities to be gang members and/or probationers/parolees. (By referrngcollectively to the Nuanez Associates, the District Attorney does not mean to assert orimply that all of those named or unnamed are engaging in the criminal or nuisanceactivity that is described below.)9. Since January of2008, the Property has constituted a public nuisance within the meaning


3/10

ofC.R.S. 16-13-304 1), in that people congregate in a mal1er which ehctiragesadisturbance of the peace, and where the conduct ofthe Nuanez Associates in the vicinityof the Property is such as to annoy or disturb the peace of the residents in the vicinity,and the passersby on the public streets and highways, in ways that include, but are notlimited to, the following:

a Members of local law enforcement have received 114 calls for service on theProperty since January 2008, and have been dispatched to investigate an excessivenumber of disturbances on the Property during that time. Of the 114 calls forservice, there have been 30 different types of calls, including but not limited toreports ofi. criminal mischief;

11. civil problems;11. parking complaints;iv. disturbances;v. drunk subjects;

Vi. noise complaints;V11. loose dog;

viii. warrant arrests for wanted parties;ix. domestic disturbance;x. narcotics complaints;

Xl. theft;xii. restraining order violations;xii. trespass;xiv. harassment;xv. summons issued;

xvi. unwanted parties;XV11. assault;

xviii. loitering; andxix. suspicious persons/activities.


4/10

b. Members oflaw enforcement report observing NuahZ Associates who are knownto them to have active arrest warrants on the Property, but have been unable tosuccessfully effect arrest of these individuals due to the large numbers of

personson the Property and the associated threat to offcer safety.

c. Members of law enforcement have conducted investigations where narcotics, suchas methamphetamine, were purchased directly from residents inside the Property.d~ Members of law enforcement have made numerous warrant arrests at theProperty.e. The property has been the target of multiple SWAT raids associated withnarcotics trafficking search warrants and wanted parties:

i. 2011 SWAT Raid: The 2011 SWAT Raid took place on August 8, 2011,as part of a five search warrant hit. Two people were arrested during theraid, and drugs were recovered at the Property, including one bag ofmethamphetamine containing .5 grams, and a second bag ofmethamphetamine containing 1.5 grams. Drug paraphernalia was alsorecovered.

11. 2012 SWAT Raid: The 2012 SWAT Raid took place on October 5 2012.Three people were arrested during the raid, and drugs were recovered atthe Property, including but not limited to one bag of methamphetaminecontaining .3 grams, a second bag of methamphetamine containing .2grams, a third bag of methamphetamine containing .4 grams, a fourth bagof methamphetamine containing 13.6 grams, and a fifth bag containing 50grams of marijuana. During this raid, Mr. Nuanez was warned to call thepolice if criminal activity started at his house again.

iii. 2013 SWAT Raid: The 2013 SWAT Raid took place on December 20,2013. Five people were arrested during the raid. Drugs were not recoveredon the Property, but it was apparent that individuals in the home hadattempted to flush drugs down the toilet Detectives noticed marijuana andther drug residue in the toilet that they recognized as being narcotics).Drug paraphernalia was recovered, and a stolen bicycle was found on theside of the Property. Additionally, a four month old infant was seized byDHHS during this raid due to the deplorable conditions inside theresidence which included infestation of bed bugs and numerous signs ofdrug abuse and packaging for distrbution.

f. Residents of the neighborhood of the Property report no longer feeling safe intheir own homes or in passing by the Property due to the activities of the Nuanezssociates on or in the vicinity of the Property. For example, neighborhoodresidents report fear of:

i. Callng law enforcement for fear of being targeted for retaliation;


5/10

ii Having to routiriely lck their drsand constantly check tomake sure

they remain locked;iii Insomnia due to the loud activity coming from the Property;

iv. Problems from the Property spiling over to their homes:1. Neighbors have reported intoxicatedlhigh individuals who areassociated with the Property, passed out on their property orbanging on their front doors because they are confused aboutwhere they are attempting to enter;2. Neighbors reported a brick being thrown through their stainedglass front door causing over 1,000.00 in physical damage andmuch more in mental trauma. Because of this incident, they feltcompelled to spend money putting a fence around their front yard,

and installng a security camera on their front porch to recordanything that should happen to them;3. Neighbors have reported feeling so concerned that they felt a needto come together as a community, for a neighborhood groupmeeting, to discuss their fears with Code Enforcement, LawEnforcement, and the District Attorney's Office;

v Their children being harmed:

1. One neighbor has felt it necessary to teach her children self-defense techniques in order to ensure they come and go safelyfrom their own residence;

2. All neighbors report refusing to let their children play outside dueto the issues at the Property;vi. Leaving the house to go outside and go to work;vii Leaving the house at night

g. St. John's Church, located across the street, has also been affected, and reports nolonger feeling safe. These concerns are heightened by the fact St. John's Churchis also a school that parents routinely drop their children at for education anddaycare. Impacts on the Church, changes the Church has seen, and changes theyhave had to make as a result of the Property include:

i The financial burden of hiring a security guard to patrol the property on aregular basis, and whose working hours have increased over time;11. The security guard routinely encounters individuals trespassing on the

grounds, using narcotics they purchased across the street, acting in highly


6/10

unusual manners and cleaning up drug para.pheralia;iii. The Church has seen numerous broken meth pipes and used syrnges inand around the Property that represent a serious health risk to anyone

living in the area;

iv. During the 2012 SWAT raid, the school and parish was placed in a LockOut, which involved approximately 30 people being locked in the church'ssouth foyer while the raid took place;v. Parishioners have questioned whether it was safe to continue attendingtheir place of worship, the school familes continue to be concerned for the,wellbeing of their children, and staff are often frghtened not knowing if itis safe to walk to and from work;vi. Staff are often confronted by people entering and leaving 330 Collyer

Street, and the conversations usually contain foul language and abusivetones and behavior;vii. Parents have been approached in the car line for school pick up by

panhandlers, who ask for money and use foul language;viii. In 2013, the Church asserted that a restraining order had to be placed onan individual who was routinely seen entering and exiting the Property at330 Collyer Street, as the individual had exhibited threatening behavior onmany occasions during Mass, including:

1. Drinking all the wine at communion, laughing out loud atinappropriate times, climbing over the pews during Mass, wearinga dark hoodie covering his head (which is considered disrespectfulduring Mass), and eating donuts and drinking coffee in and outduring Mass. On one occasion, he stood up during a Mass makingshooting gestures, at which time the Church's Liturgy Directorcalled the police, who then arrved to manage the situation.h. The continuing criminal activity at the Property over the past few years has been alarge financial burden on the city of Longmont. The problems at this residencehave forced the Longmont Police Department to spend a tremendous amount of

time, manpower, resources and finances on an ongoing situation.i. The city of Longmont's Code Enforcement has been also been actively involvedwith the Property since December of2013:

i. Code Enforcement issued a Notice of Condemnation, which stated that theProperty lacks maintenance, is insanitary, is invested with vermin,contains fith and contamination, lacks other essential equipment requiredby the IPMC, does not meet minimum means of egress required by theIFC. The Notice of Condemnation had to be amended two weeks later


7/10

because it was not adhered to;ii. Code Enforcement also issued a summons to Mr. Nuanez for non-compliance. Code Enforcement had to return to the residence on January

24,2014 because Mr. Nuanez once again did to not comply with the orderto remove the extensive trash that had accumulated all over the side of thehouse and backyard some of which was spiling over to the neighbordirectly to the south. The city was forced to come in and remove all thetra~h.

10. Since January of2008, the Property has constituted a public nuisance within the meaningofC.R.S. 16-13-304(1)(b), in that the Property encourages the use, sale, anddistribution of controlled substances, as defined in C.R.S. 18-18-102(5).11. Mr. Nuanez actively participates in the nuisance activities. This activity is specific tonarcotics use and distribution:

a. Mr. Nuanez has stated to associates that he has been trading narc,otics for rent athis house, thus allowing his home to become a flop house formethamphetamine users. This activity has led to these individuals to use thehouse for distribution;b. Mr. Nuanez has routinely been present when disturbances, assaults and othercrimes have been committed on his property or in his residence. He has also beenpresent during all three SW AT raids at his residence;c. Mr. Nuanez has been warned on several occasions that he needs to call the police

ifhe needs assistance trespassing unwanted people frorn his residence, or the raidswould continue. It is clear from the evaluation of the calls for service that he hasnot called the police for assistance with any criminal matters or unwanted peopleat his residence;d. Mr. Nuanez also admitted to Det. Stephen Schulz that he knew his residence was, being used for drug sales and that it was not unusual to have more than twenty customers at the house during the course of one day;e. Additionally Mr. Nuanez was convicted of possession ofa Schedule controlledsubstance which resulted from the 2012 SWAT raid.

12. Pursuant to C.R.S. 16-13-309judgment in an action to abate a public nuisance mayinclude a permanent injunction to restrain, abate and prevent the continuance orrecurrence of the nuisance. The court may grant declaratory relief, mandatory orders, orany other relief deemed necessary to accomplish the purposes of the injunction or order,and enforce the same. Judgment in an action to abate a class 2 public nuisance mayinclude an order directing the sheriff to seize and close the public nuisance and to keepthe same closed until further order of the court, not to exceed one year.


8/10

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEFDeclaratory Judgment Under C.R.S. 13-51-101 et seq. 16-13-301 et seq., andC.R.C.P. 57

13. All previous allegations of this Verified Complaint are hereby re-alleged andincorporated as if fully set forth under this first claim for relief.

14. The People are interested in the Property based upon C.RS. 16-13-301 et seq.15. An action to abate a public nuisance may be brought by the District Attorney in the name

of the People ofthe State of Colorado. C.R.S. 16-13-307 4), and Defendants include thesubject Property and those known and unkown persons and business associations thathave or may have an interest in the Property.16. There is a controversy between the Parties as to whether the Property is a class two public

nuisance under C.R.S. 16-13..J04.17. The People respectfully request that this Court resolve the controversy by declaring theParties rights under C.R.S. 13-51-101 et seq., 16-13-301 et seq., and C.R.C.P. 57 and

grant such further and other relief as justice requires.SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEFPublic Nuisance Under C.R.S. 16-13-301 et seq.

18. All previous allegations of this Verified Complaint are hereby re-alleged andincorporated as if fully set forth under this second claim for relief.19. Since January of 2008, the Property has constituted a public nuisance within the meaning

ofC.R.S. 16-13-304 1), in that people congregate, which encourages a disturbance ofthe peace, and where the conduct of persons in or about that place is such as to annoy ordisturb the peace of the occupants of and persons attending that place, and the residents inthe vicinity, and the passersby on the public streets and highways.20. The People respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in favor ofthe People andagainst the Defendants on their claim of Class 2 public nuisance, enter an order ofabatement under C.RS. 16-13-309 that requires immediate compliance order the

sheriffto seize and close the Property under C.R.S. 16-13-308 and C.R.S. 16-13-309award injunctive relief under C.R.C.P. impose fines under C.R.S. 16-13-312conditioned upon compliance with the orders of the Court, impose any liens or otherencumbrances upon the Property as may be appropriate under C.R.S. 16-13-313impose of fees under C.RS. 16-13-313 and award costs and other relief that justicerequires.

WHEREFORE, the People respectfully request that this Court enter judgment for the People andagainst the Defendants and that this Court:1. Declare the Property a class two public nuisance pursuant to C.RS. 16-13-304;2. Enter an order of abatement requiring the sheriff immediately to seize and close the


9/10


10/10

STATE OF COLORADO ) ss.COUNTY OF BOULDER

VERIFICATION

Offcer Steven Deal, being first duly sworn, states as follows:I am an Officer in the Longmont Police Department. In this offcial capacity I have theauthority to investigate violations ofthe Colorado criminal law, as well as Longmont municipal

code. I have access to incident and arrest reports, investigative files, and records of dispatchactions. I have read the foregoing Verified Complaint. I have official knowledge concerning allstatements made in the Verified Complaint are true to the best of my knowledge, information andbelief.

Steven D al ~Officer, Longmont Police Department I SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this I O-tay of ~aL20li. .

My commission expires: 3- 8- 201+~~U.otary Public

silverio nuanez verified complaint

Documents