DISTRICT COURT, BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO

Court Address: Boulder County Justice Center

1777 Sixth Street Boulder, Colorado 80302

Court Phone: (303) 441-3750

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff,

vs.

COURT USE ONLY

SILVARIO NUANEZ, THE ESTATE OF ELAINE MANESS, THE RESIDENCE AND PROPERTY LOCATED AT 330 COLLYER, LONGMONT, CO., AND ANY OTHER UNKNOWN PERSONS, BUSINESSES, PARTNERSHIPS AND CORPORATIONS HAVING ANY INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS ACTION,
Defendant( s) Attorney Name:

Attorney Phone:
Attorney

Fax:

Attorney E-mail:

Nicole A. Mor, #42332 Deputy District Attorney Boulder County Justice Center 1777 Sixth St Boulder, CO 80302 (303) 441-3793 (303) 441-4703 nmorbouldercountv.or2:

Case

No:

Division:

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

The People, through District Attorney Stanley L. Garnett (the "District Attorney"), respectfully submit this Verified Complaint against Defendants and upon information and belief, state and aver as follows:

NATURE OF THIS ACTION

1. A residential property located at 330 Collyer Street, Longmont, Colorado, that is owned Elaine Maness, ("The
by Silvario "Ralph" Nuanez ("Mr. Nuanez") and the Estate of

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

JURISDICTION & VENUE

2. An action to abate a public nuisance may be brought by the District Attorney in the name Colorado. C.R.S. 16-13-307(4). This Court has subject the State of the People of of matter jurisdiction over this matter under C.R.S. 13-51-101 et seq., 16-13-307(2), and C.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 all

individual 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 the District Attorney for the Twentieth Judicial District is a "seizing agency" within the
meaning ofC.R.S. 16-13-301(2.7).

Longmont, Boulder County,

5. Mr. Nuanez resides at 330 Collyer Street, in the City of

Colorado.

6. Elaine Maness passed away in 2009, and her portion ofthe residence located at 330 Collyer 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, Boulder County, Colorado (the "Property"). The Property is "real property" within the meaning ofC.R.S. 16-13-301(2.6). Mr. Nuanez and Estate have a pecuniary interest in and occupy a home on the Property. It is unkown whether any other person or business association has a property interest in the Property.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
8. From time to time, other family members and their associates also reside, are guests, or are permitted to be present, at the Property (the "Nuanez Associates"), and include, but
are not limited to: Richard WaIn, Merce Gonzalez, Anthony "Jason" Gonzalez, Palmer Pacheco, Sharmane Trout,

"Jordan" Gutierrez, Porfiro

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 Sandra Maldanado aka: Sandra Vidales, their acquaintances, and people who are known by law enforcement authorities to be gang members and/or probationers/parolees. (By referrng collectively to the Nuanez Associates, the District Attorney does not mean to assert or imply that all of those named or unnamed are engaging in the criminal or nuisance activity that is described below.)
9. Since January of2008, the Property has constituted a public nuisance within the meaning

ofC.R.S. 16-13-304(1), in that people congregate in a mal1er which ehctiragesa the peace, and where the conduct ofthe Nuanez Associates in the vicinity disturbance of of 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 not limited to, the following:
a. Members of local

law enforcement have received 114 calls for service on the Property since January 2008, and have been dispatched to investigate an excessive number of disturbances on the Property during that time. Of the 114 calls for service, there have been 30 different types of calls, including but not limited to
reports of:
i. criminal mischief;
11.

civil problems;

11. parking complaints;

iv. disturbances;
v. drunk subjects;
Vi.
V11.

noise complaints;
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; and

xix. suspicious persons/activities.

b. Members oflaw enforcement report observing NuahZ Associates who are known to them to have active arrest warrants on the Property, but have been unable to persons these individuals due to the large numbers of successfully effect arrest of
on the Property and the associated threat to offcer safety.

c. Members of law enforcement have conducted investigations where narcotics, such as methamphetamine, were purchased directly from residents inside the Property.
d~ Members of law enforcement have made numerous warrant arrests at the Property.
e. The property has been the target of multiple SWAT raids associated with

narcotics 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 the raid, and drugs were recovered at the Property, including one bag of methamphetamine containing .5 grams, and a second bag of methamphetamine containing 1.5 grams. Drug paraphernalia was also recovered.
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 at the Property, including but not limited to one bag of methamphetamine containing .3 grams, a second bag of methamphetamine containing .2 grams, a third bag of methamphetamine containing .4 grams, a fourth bag methamphetamine containing 13.6 grams, and a fifth bag containing 50 of marijuana. During this raid, Mr. Nuanez was warned to call the grams of police 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 recovered on the Property, but it was apparent that individuals in the home had attempted to flush drugs down the toilet (Detectives noticed marijuana and ther drug residue in the toilet that they recognized as being narcotics). Drug paraphernalia was recovered, and a stolen bicycle was found on the side of the Property. Additionally, a four month old infant was seized by DHHS during this raid due to the deplorable conditions inside the bed bugs and numerous signs of residence which included infestation of drug abuse and packaging for distrbution.

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

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

make sure
ii. Having to routiriely lck their drsand constantly check to

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 are

associated with the Property, passed out on their property or banging on their front doors because they are confused about where they are attempting to enter;
2. Neighbors reported a brick being thrown through their stained

glass front door causing over $1,000.00 in physical damage and much more in mental trauma. Because of this incident, they felt compelled to spend money putting a fence around their front yard, and installng a security camera on their front porch to record anything that should happen to them;

3. Neighbors have reported feeling so concerned that they felt a need to come together as a community, for a neighborhood group meeting, to discuss their fears with Code Enforcement, Law Enforcement, 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 safely from their own residence;

2. All neighbors report refusing to let their children play outside due to 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 no longer feeling safe. These concerns are heightened by the fact St. John's Church is also a school that parents routinely drop their children at for education and daycare. Impacts on the Church, changes the Church has seen, and changes they have had to make as a result of the Property include:
i. The financial burden of

hiring a security guard to patrol the property on a regular 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

unusual manners and cleaning up drug para.pheralia;

iii. The Church has seen numerous broken "meth" pipes and used syrnges in

and 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 Lock Out, which involved approximately 30 people being locked in the church's south foyer while the raid took place;

v. Parishioners have questioned whether it was safe to continue attending their place of worship, the school familes continue to be concerned for the ,wellbeing of their children, and staff are often frghtened not knowing if it is 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 abusive

tones and behavior;

vii. Parents have been approached in the car line for school pick up by language; panhandlers, who ask for money and use foul
viii. In 2013, the Church asserted that a restraining order had to be placed on

an individual who was routinely seen entering and exiting the Property at 330 Collyer Street, as the individual had exhibited threatening behavior on many occasions during Mass, including:

1. Drinking all the wine at communion, laughing out loud at inappropriate times, climbing over the pews during Mass, wearing a dark hoodie covering his head (which is considered disrespectful during Mass), and eating donuts and drinking coffee in and out during Mass. On one occasion, he stood up during a Mass making shooting gestures, at which time the Church's Liturgy Director called the police, who then arrved to manage the situation.
h. The continuing criminal activity at the Property over the past few years has been a large financial burden on the city of Longmont. The problems at this residence have 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 involved with the Property since December of2013:

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

because it was not adhered to;

ii. Code Enforcement also issued

a summons to Mr. Nuanez for noncompliance. Code Enforcement had to return to the residence on January 24,2014 because Mr. Nuanez once again did to not comply with the order to remove the extensive trash that had accumulated all over the side of the which was spiling over to the neighbor house and backyard, some of directly to the south. The city was forced to come in and remove all the
tra~h.

10. Since January of2008, the Property has constituted a public nuisance within the meaning ofC.R.S. 16-13-304(1)(b), in that the Property encourages the use, sale, and distribution 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 to narcotics use and distribution:

a. Mr. Nuanez has stated to associates that he has been trading narc,otics for rent at his house, thus allowing his home to become a "flop house" for methamphetamine users. This activity has led to these individuals to use the house for distribution;

b. Mr. Nuanez has routinely been present when disturbances, assaults and other crimes have been committed on his property or in his residence. He has also been
present 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 raids would continue. It is clear from the evaluation of the calls for service that he has not called the police for assistance with any criminal matters or unwanted people at 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 5 controlled

substance which resulted from the 2012 SWAT raid.

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

Declaratory Judgment Under C.R.S. 13-51-101 et seq.,

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 16-13-301 et seq., andC.R.C.P. 57

13. All previous allegations of this Verified Complaint are hereby re-alleged and
incorporated 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 Colorado. C.R.S. 16-13-307(4), and Defendants include the of the People ofthe State of subject Property and those known and unkown persons and business associations that
have 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 the Parties 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 RELIEF Public Nuisance Under C.R.S. 16-13-301 et seq.
18. All previous allegations of this Verified Complaint are hereby re-alleged and incorporated 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 of the peace, and where the conduct of persons in or about that place is such as to annoy or disturb the peace of the occupants of and persons attending that place, and the residents in the vicinity, and the passersby on the public streets and highways.

20. The People respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in favor ofthe People and against the Defendants on their claim of Class 2 public nuisance, enter an order of
abatement under C.RS. 16-13-309 that requires immediate compliance, order the under C.R.S. 16-13-308, and C.R.S. 16-13-309, sheriffto seize and close the Property under C.R.C.P., impose fines under C.R.S. 16-13-312 award injunctive relief

conditioned upon compliance with the orders of the Court, impose any liens or other encumbrances upon the Property as may be appropriate under C.R.S. 16-13-313
impose of fees under C.RS. 16-13-313, and award costs and other relief that justice

requires.

WHEREFORE, the People respectfully request that this Court enter judgment for the People and against 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

Property;
3. Enter a permanent order of abatement limiting occupancy ofthe property to Silvario

Nuanez, one adult blood relative, and any related minor children under the age of 11, at any given time;
4. Enter temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctions against Defendants under

C.R.C.P.:

a. Limiting occupancy ofthe Property to Silvario Nuanez, one adult blood relative, and any related minor children under the age of 11, at any given time;
b. Limiting the numbers, and ages of visitors who may be present at the Property at any given time to the occupants of the home and no more than 4 non-residents (not which shall not be subject to including children under the age of 11, the number of limitation);

c. Prohibiting any individual who is serving a parole, probation, work release or community corrections sentence from visiting, or residing at, the property;
5. Enter an order of abatement requiring Defendants to comply with the City of

Longmont

Code Enforcement;
6. Impose fines under C.R.S. 16-13-312 conditioned upon compliance with the orders of

the Court;
7. Impose any liens or other encumbrances upon the Property as may be appropriate under

C.R.S. 16-13-313;

8. Impose fees under C.R.S. 16-13-313;

9. Award such costs and other relief as justice requires.

Respectfully submitted,

By:

~ dJ~ Av
STANLEY GARNETT DISTRICT ATTORNEY

Nicole A. Mor, Reg. #42332 Deputy District Attorney February 10, 2014

STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.

VERIFICATION

COUNTY OF BOULDER )
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 the authority 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 dispatch actions. I have read the foregoing Verified Complaint. I have official knowledge concerning all statements made in the Verified Complaint are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

Steven D al ~
Officer, Longmont Police Department

20li. .

" I SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this I O-tay of ~aL

~~U.
Notary Public
My commission expires:

3- 8- 201+