District Court, D. Colorado — appointed by George H.W. Bush
United States v. MacK
District Court, D. Colorado · 2003-07-14 · cited 1×
In United States v. Mack, the defendant moved to suppress wiretap evidence obtained in an investigation of a cocaine distribution conspiracy, seeking a hearing under Franks v. Delaware to challenge alleged deficiencies in the wiretap applications and arguing that the applications failed to satisfy the statutory necessity requirement under 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c). The court first denied the Franks hearing because the defendant could not proffer any deliberate falsehoods or reckless disregard for the truth by the affiant. Applying the Tenth Circuit's standard from United States v. Ramirez-Encarnacion, which reviews the necessity determination for abuse of discretion after de novo review of whether a full statement was submitted, the court examined the affidavits' descriptions of traditional investigative methods, surveillance, interviews, and database searches. It concluded that those methods had reached diminishing returns and that additional wiretaps on the defendant's phones were necessary to determine the scope of the conspiracy. The court therefore denied the motion to suppress.
criminal lawprocedure
Olivarez v. Centura Health Corp.
District Court, D. Colorado · 2002-04-18 · cited 1×
In Olivarez v. Centura Health Corp., a Hispanic/Native American security officer sued his employer under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging that he faced racial discrimination creating a hostile work environment, was constructively discharged after complaining about it, and suffered retaliation for those complaints. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. It reasoned that the plaintiff had not presented evidence of severe or pervasive racial harassment, that the incidents cited were not racially motivated or objectively intolerable enough to force resignation, and that without a constructive discharge there was no adverse employment action to support a retaliation claim.
civil rightslabor & employment
United States v. Delano
District Court, D. Colorado · 2001-11-02 · cited 50×
The case involved the United States seeking to collect James Delano's unpaid federal income taxes by foreclosing a tax lien on his interest in the Anna Delano Trust, a testamentary trust of which he was the sole beneficiary and co-trustee. The primary dispute was whether his interest qualified as "property" under 26 U.S.C. § 6321 to which a federal tax lien could attach. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, holding that the trust interest was a property right under Colorado law because the will's language gave the trustee discretion over distributions but effectively provided Delano with full control and a 100% interest in the assets as the sole beneficiary with power to terminate the trust. The court rejected the co-trustees' partial summary judgment motion, found no material factual disputes, and directed further proceedings on the exact tax amounts owed.
taxespropertyfederal powerprocedure
Kwon v. Comfort
District Court, D. Colorado · 2001-06-06 · cited 1×
The case involved a Korean lawful permanent resident convicted of second- and third-degree sexual assault, who faced removal proceedings as an aggravated felon under immigration law and sought a writ of habeas corpus to challenge his mandatory detention without bond. The court denied the petition, ruling that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) requires custody for aliens deportable due to such convictions and that Congress acted within its authority by mandating detention pending removal. The opinion reasoned that the statute reflects Congress's intent to prioritize removal of criminal aliens, that no constitutional entitlement to bond exists in this context, and that detention is limited to the time needed for proceedings rather than indefinite. It also rejected arguments that the petitioner was not yet "deportable" or that the provision raised due process concerns.
immigrationcriminal lawfederal power
United States v. Borrayo-Gutierrez
District Court, D. Colorado · 2000-10-26 · cited 1×
This case concerns multiple defendants' motions to suppress wiretap and electronic surveillance evidence obtained by federal law enforcement in a criminal investigation. The court applied Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, noting that wiretap orders are presumed valid and defendants bear the burden of showing a substantial deviation from statutory requirements such as necessity under 18 U.S.C. § 2518. It reviewed the government's affidavits for adequate demonstration that other investigative techniques had been tried or would be unlikely to succeed, and addressed related issues including minimization and the form of the applications. The opinion outlines the three-tiered authorization process and evaluates specific challenges to the necessity showing in the three wiretap orders at issue.
criminal lawprocedure
Katz v. City of Aurora
District Court, D. Colorado · 2000-02-18 · cited 9×
This case involved a former Aurora police officer who sued the city and its police chief alleging age discrimination under the ADEA after a 1996 internal investigation led to a demotion and his retirement, a §1983 claim that the city's sexual harassment policy violated due process and equal protection, and a state-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court treated the motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment because the parties submitted materials outside the pleadings. It granted summary judgment and dismissed all claims, holding that the ADEA claim was time-barred because the EEOC charge was filed more than 300 days after the alleged discriminatory acts, the §1983 claims failed because the plaintiff received a predisciplinary hearing and the policy was not unconstitutionally discriminatory, and the tort claim lacked evidence of extreme and outrageous conduct. The court made a de novo review of the magistrate judge's recommendation and the record before reaching these conclusions.
labor & employmentcivil rightsproceduretorts & liability