Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sanchez v. Hartley

United States District Court, D. Colorado

October 26, 2017

JOE RYAN HARTLEY, Detective, in his individual capacity, RYAN WOLFF, Detective, in his individual capacity, MIKE DUFFY, Detective, in his individual capacity, HEATHER MYKES, Detective in her individual capacity, MICHAEL DICKSON, Investigator, in his individual capacity, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, and DOUGLAS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Defendants.



         In this action, Plaintiff Tyler Sanchez (“Sanchez”) alleges that the various Defendants knowingly or recklessly extracted from him a false confession to a sexual assault for which he was unsuccessfully prosecuted, and that Defendants are therefore liable to him under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for malicious prosecution in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Currently before the Court are three summary judgment motions filed by various groups of parties, as follows: (1) a motion filed by Defendants Joe Ryan Hartley (“Hartley”) and Ryan Wolff (“Wolff”) (ECF No. 184); (2) a motion filed by Defendants Heather Mykes (“Mykes”), Mike Duffy (“Duffy”), the Board of County Commissioners of Douglas County, and the Douglas County Sheriff's Office (ECF No. 180); and (3) a motion filed by Defendant Michael Dickson (“Dickson”) (ECF No. 175). Throughout this order the Court will refer to the individual Defendants (i.e., all Defendants except the Board of County Commissioners of Douglas County and the Douglas County Sheriff's Office) collectively as “Defendants, ” unless the context requires otherwise.

         For the reasons explained below, Defendants' motions are denied, and this case will be set for trial to resolve significant factual disputes that prevent the Court from applying qualified immunity. Sanchez's counsel are also cautioned regarding certain exaggerated characterizations of the summary judgment record.


         Summary judgment is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-50 (1986). A fact is “material” if, under the relevant substantive law, it is essential to proper disposition of the claim. Wright v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 259 F.3d 1226, 1231-32 (10th Cir. 2001). An issue is “genuine” if the evidence is such that it might lead a reasonable trier of fact to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Allen v. Muskogee, 119 F.3d 837, 839 (10th Cir. 1997).

         In analyzing a motion for summary judgment, a court must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 670 (10th Cir. 1998) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)). In addition, the Court must resolve factual ambiguities against the moving party, thus favoring the right to a trial. See Houston v. Nat'l Gen. Ins. Co., 817 F.2d 83, 85 (10th Cir. 1987).

         II. FACTS

         The following facts are undisputed unless attributed to a party, or otherwise noted.

         A. The Crimes in Question

         1. The Quarry Hill Sexual Assault

         In the early morning of July 10, 2009, a mother residing on Quarry Hill Drive in the Stonegate neighborhood of Parker, Colorado, made a 911 call to the Douglas County Sheriff's Office (“DCSO”), reporting that someone had broken into her home through her eight-year-old daughter's second story window and had sexually assaulted the daughter. (ECF No. 180 at 4, ¶ 1; ECF No. 204 at 4 ¶ 8.)[1] DCSO began to investigate, including through interviewing the family and the child, interviewing neighbors, and gathering fingerprints and DNA. (ECF No. 180 at 4, ¶ 2.) The young victim of the sexual assault told investigators that the perpetrator was a white man who appeared to be about her father's age (her father was 40 years old) and about the same size and build as her father (her father weighed slightly less than 200 pounds), with brown hair parted in the middle and no tattoos on his hands or arms. (ECF No. 204 at 4, ¶ 9.)

         2. The Branham Drive Trespass

         On July 17, 2009 (one week later) at approximately 12:40 AM, Defendants Wolff and Hartley (both Parker police officers) and DCSO Deputy Jason Cirbo (not a party here), responded to a call regarding a prowler on Branham Drive in the Stonegate neighborhood. (Id. at 5, ¶ 11.) Wolff, Hartley, and Cirbo learned that the caller (a homeowner in the neighborhood) had noticed a man wearing black clothing and a dark baseball cap in his backyard. (Id.; ECF No. 180 at 5, ¶ 5.) When the prowler spotted the homeowner through a window, he fled, knocking over patio furniture and jumping the back fence. (Id.)

         Shortly thereafter, a Parker police officer (not a party here) observed a car at the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Chambers Road in Parker. (ECF No. 204 at 5, ¶ 12; ECF No. 205-2 at 90.) By the shortest driving route, that intersection is just over 1 mile from the Branham Drive address where the prowler had been reported.[2] This intersection can see high traffic during the daytime, but is not busy in the middle of the night. (ECF No. 184 at 3, ¶ 6.)

         The reporting officer further noticed that the occupant of the car was a white male wearing a black shirt. (Id.) The reporting officer relayed the car's license plate number, which Wolff entered into his computer and traced to an address on Birch Avenue in Parker (which, as they would soon learn, was the address of Sanchez and his family). (ECF No. 184 at 3, ¶ 7.) Wolff, Hartley, and others not parties here, drove to the Birch Avenue address and found Sanchez sitting in his car-the same car spotted at Lincoln and Chambers-in the driveway. (Id. ¶ 7.)

         B. Tyler Sanchez

         As will become clear shortly, Wolff's and Hartley's encounter with Sanchez in his driveway would lead to multiple interrogations over the course of the next few days regarding a number of different crimes. But, how to view the evidence generated over that time span turns heavily on what Wolff, Hartley, and the other Defendants allegedly must have noticed regarding Sanchez's physical appearance and mental functioning. The Court will therefore address that matter before resuming the narrative.

         At the time Wolff and Hartley first approached him, Sanchez was just a few days shy of his nineteenth birthday. (ECF No. 204 at 2, ¶ 1.) He is a high school graduate. (ECF No. 180 at 10-11, ¶ 27.) He has red hair, and wore it in a buzz cut as of July 2009. (ECF No. 204 at 4-5, ¶ 10.) Also as of July 2009, he had a very thin build and weighed approximately 130 pounds. (Id.) He has easily visible tattoos on each forearm, one reading “Sanchez” and the other reading “Michelle” (the name of his girlfriend at the time). (Id.)

         Sanchez claims that he is-and, as of July 2009, was-cognitively and developmentally disabled. (Id. at 2, ¶ 2.) In support, he cites from the report of a psychiatrist, Ashley Wheeler, M.D., who evaluated him in March 2012 (a circumstance the Court will describe below in Part II.E.3.c). (Id. ¶¶ 2-4.) Dr. Wheeler opined that, in July 2009, Sanchez suffered from “mixed receptive-expressive language disorder, borderline intellectual functioning, auditory processing deficits, social anxiety, and submissive personality traits.” (ECF No. 204-1 at 109.) He has, according to Dr. Wheeler, “problems comprehending vocabulary, grammar, and understanding abstract concepts.” (Id. at 95.) These problems can be exacerbated by anxiety and fatigue. (Id. at 96.)

         Most important for present purposes, Sanchez asserts that his “disabilities are open and obvious.” (ECF No. 204 at 3, ¶ 5.) In particular, he claims that he

presents as a significantly younger person than his actual age. His inability to understand questions and provide appropriate responsive information, as well as his reduced intellectual functioning, are obvious to anyone who speaks with him. It is obvious that he is susceptible to suggestions made by authority figures.

(Id. (citations omitted).) In support of these assertions, he cites the deposition testimony of his parents and a criminal defense lawyer who later represented him. These witnesses claim that Sanchez does not openly communicate, has limited conversation ability, requires questions to be simplified, and that all of this is open and obvious- although, partly to the contrary, his criminal defense attorney acknowledged that Sanchez “masks it well” because “he doesn't talk about the fact that he's got a disability. He doesn't explain to you that he doesn't understand you. * * * He'll agree with anything you say.” (ECF No. 204-5 at 15.)

         The Court will frequently return to Sanchez's disability, and its allegedly open and obvious nature, in the Analysis section (Part III). For present purposes, it is enough to keep the allegation in mind as it relates to the events described below.

         C. The Various Interviews and Interrogations

         1. Wolff's and Hartley's Interaction with Sanchez in His Driveway

         When Wolff and Hartley approached Sanchez sitting in his car, they noticed that he “appeared very nervous and was sweating.” (ECF No. 204 at 7, ¶ 16.) He was also wearing black pants and a black McDonald's shirt. (ECF No. 205-8 at 3.) Wolff and Hartley then began interviewing Sanchez and reportedly learned that he had just worked the late shift at McDonald's. (Id.) When inquiring about whether Sanchez had stopped anywhere on his way home from McDonalds, the officers-according to Sanchez-“repeatedly suggested to Mr. Sanchez specific details about the Branham Drive trespass, ” after which Sanchez “allegedly admitted to [that] trespass by going along with Defendants' suggestions.” (ECF No. 204 at 7, ¶ 18.) Sanchez does not concede that he actually admitted the trespass, and in fact accuses Wolff and Hartley of fabricating most of the details of this interview, which was not video- or audio-recorded. (ECF No. 200 at 2, ¶ 6.)

         In the middle of this interview, Sanchez's mother, Cynthia, exited the home. (ECF No. 204 at 7, ¶ 19.) According to her deposition testimony, one of the police officers (she does not remember which one) told her that she could not approach Sanchez and so, she says, “I yelled out, I told him, He doesn't understand all of this, you know. And they wouldn't let me-they just-I had to yell something out like that.” (ECF No. 204-3 at 18.)[3]

         Based on what Wolff and Hartley claim to be Sanchez's responses to their questions, Sanchez was arrested for criminal trespass, and transported to the Douglas County Jail. (ECF No. 204 at 8, ¶ 21.)

         2. Sanchez's Interview with Wolff and Hartley at the Jail

         Beginning at about 2:20 AM on July 17, 2009, Wolff and Hartley interviewed Sanchez for about two hours in what was known as the “DUI room” of the Douglas County Jail. (Id. ¶ 23.)[4] The DUI room has video surveillance cameras, without audio, but the Douglas County Jail preserves surveillance video for only thirty days, and the video of this interview was not preserved before being overwritten in the normal course. (Id. at 12, ¶ 35; ECF No. 210 at 6, ¶ 35; ECF No. 214 at 10, ¶ 35.) Sanchez attempts to pin blame for this on Wolff and Hartley, alleging that they “permitted the tape to be destroyed.” (ECF No. 204 at 12, ¶ 35.) Sanchez's cited evidence does not actually support this claim (see id.), but Wolff and Hartley cite no evidence that they could not have ensured preservation of the video. At his deposition, Wolff stated that, at the time, he “was not actively thinking that [the interview] was being recorded” and therefore took no action to preserve the surveillance video. (ECF No. 204-14 at 41.)

         Regardless, the parties agree that Wolff and Hartley not only asked about the Branham Drive trespass, but also about the Quarry Hill sexual assault a week earlier (which occurred in the same general neighborhood) and various other burglaries and trespasses then being investigated by DCSO. (ECF No. 204 at 8-10, ¶¶ 24, 29.) Wolff and Hartley mostly asked yes or no questions, including frequent questions where Sanchez was asked whether he remembered various details of the crimes in question, such as whether he remembered being in a backyard in the Stonegate neighborhood, or fleeing through a second-story window at the Quarry Hill address. (Id. at 9, ¶ 27.)[5]

         All of the facts that Sanchez eventually confirmed were facts that Wolff and Hartley had supplied to him. (Id.) Moreover, although they had no DNA evidence, Wolff and Hartley coyly asked Sanchez “if there would be any reason that his DNA would be located on a tree and screen [at the Quarry Hill address] and [Sanchez] stated yes because he climbed a tree [and removed a screen to get into the house].” (ECF No. 205-10 at 4.)[6] And, concerning the Branham Drive trespass, Sanchez agreed with a suggestion from Wolff and Hartley that he fled the backyard when the back porch light came on, although the homeowner had never reported to police that he had turned on a porch light. (ECF No. 204 at 9, ¶ 27.) By the end of the interrogation, Sanchez had confessed to the Branham Drive trespass, and also to breaking into the Quarry Hill address on the morning of the sexual assault, although he denied sexually assaulting the girl. (Id. at 9-11, ¶¶ 27-28, 32; ECF No. 184 at 5, ¶ 15.) He also confessed to certain other burglaries and trespasses, including incidents where-as with Quarry Hill-Sanchez bore no obvious resemblance to the perpetrators as described by the various victims. (ECF No. 204 at 10, ¶ 29.)

         At 4:45 AM or thereabouts, Deputy Cirbo drafted and signed a Statement in Support of Warrantless Arrest and a Misdemeanor Summons and Complaint, both related to the Branham Drive trespass. (Id. at 13, ¶ 37.) Sanchez says that Deputy Cirbo “relied solely on Hartley and Wolff's representations” to draft these documents (id.), and Hartley and Wolff concede that Cirbo “relied, in large part, upon [them] for the information included therein” (ECF No. 214 at 11, ¶ 37). Both documents generally repeated the statements Wolff and Hartley had coaxed out of Sanchez. (See ECF Nos. 205-1, 205-8.) They contain no mention of anything that might cast doubt on Sanchez's reliability, such as his demeanor, disabilities, suggestibility, allegedly suspected intoxication, etc. Sanchez claims that Wolff and Hartley intentionally omitted any such details from the information conveyed to Cirbo. (ECF No. 204 at 13, ¶ 37.)

         The Statement in Support of Warrantless Arrest reports the evidence against Sanchez (apart from his black clothing and alleged profuse sweating when first approached in his driveway) as follows:

Officers Hartley and Wolff spoke with Tyler Sanchez and were told by Tyler Sanchez that he had not been in the area [of the Branham Drive trespass] but had been on Cherrywood Drive visiting a friend but then changed his story and told them that he had in fact jumped the fence into the backyard at [the Branham Drive address] because he wanted to sit down but could not give a reason why he wanted, or needed, to sit down in that particular yard. Tyler Sanchez had said that he had been on his way home from work at McDonald's.

(ECF No. 205-8 at 3 (capitalization normalized).) As for the Quarry Hill sexual assault, Hartley wrote a progress report in which he recounted Sanchez's alleged confession as follows:

• He was asked if he remembered breaking into a house in Stonegate about a week and a half ago near the Stonegate pool.
• He stated that he remembered breaking into that house.
• He was asked how he got in and he stated that he did not remember.
• He was asked if he entered ground level or second level or if he had to climb up the house.
• He stated that he had to climb a little bit to get in but did not remember where he climbed up at.
• He was asked if after entering the house he went into a room that was occupied by a person.
• He stated that he remembered seeing someone while in the house and being startled and jumping out a window.
• When asked if the window was low or high he stated that the window was high.
• When asked who started [sic] him [and] he stated that he did not remember.
• He was asked specifically if it could have been a little girl and he stated that it could have been.

         (ECF No. 205-10 at 4.) Following this itemized list, the progress report continues as follows:

Detective Wolff then questioned Tyler about his honesty in the crimes that he had confessed to during the interview. . . . Detective Wolff asked Tyler if he was only confessing to involvement in these crimes because he thought that it was what the Detectives wanted to hear or because he was actually involved. Tyler stated it was because he remembered being involved in the incidents. Detective Wolff then asked if he remembered being startled by a little girl in one of the burglaries in Stonegate and he again indicated that he did. Detective Wolff asked specifically if he remembered fondling the little girl before he jumped out the window and ran away and Tyler stated he did not remember that.

(Id. at 4-5.)

         3. Sanchez's First Interview with Duffy and Mykes

         Defendants Mykes and Duffy (both DCSO detectives at the time) were the “co-lead” investigators on the Quarry Hill sexual assault case. (ECF No. 204 at 14, ¶ 40.) Not long after Wolff and Hartley finished interrogating Sanchez, they reported Sanchez's alleged confession regarding Quarry Hill to a DCSO officer, who relayed it to Mykes and Duffy. (Id.) Mykes and Duffy then went to the Douglas County Jail to interview Sanchez. (ECF No. 204-8 at 18.)[7]

         As of that date, both Mykes and Duffy had completed a forty-hour Crisis Intervention Team (“CIT”) training course. (ECF No. 204 at 15, ¶ 43 (evidence cited); ECF No. 204-20 at 14 (Mykes completed CIT training in 2005, and Duffy did so in 2006).) DCSO's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition witness testified that CIT training is not aimed at teaching officers how to conduct criminal investigative interviews with potentially disabled persons, but is instead aimed at helping officers (among other things) to

ask[] information-gathering questions to try to assess what's going on, what might be going on situationally in the person's life to have them in crisis, what else is going on in terms of drug use, alcohol use, medical issues, other mental health issues, those types of questions, to try to get an assessment of what's going on, what's driving the crisis, and what can we do to help resolve it.

(ECF No. 212-7 at 7-8.) In that context, officers going through CIT training are educated on how to recognize persons with cognitive disabilities, and are also informed that some of these persons are likely to respond to officers by telling them what they think the officers want to hear, meaning that leading questions should be avoided. (ECF No. 204 at 15, ¶ 43 (evidence cited).)

         Previous to their interview with Sanchez, Mykes and Duffy reviewed Wolff's and Hartley's written progress reports regarding the interrogation earlier that morning, and they spoke with Wolff and Hartley, although the precise scope of the conversation is unclear. (ECF No. 204 at 14, ¶¶ 40-41.) As noted above, Duffy remembers Wolff and Hartley stating a general concern that Sanchez might be under the influence of alcohol or drugs. (Id. ¶ 41.) Just before the interview, however, and apparently in Mykes's presence, detention officers required Sanchez to take a breathalyzer test, which showed a breath alcohol level of zero. (ECF No. 204-8 at 18.)

         That interview itself began at about 7:35 AM in a dedicated interview room with an active audiovisual recording system. (See ECF No. 180-1 (video recording of the interrogation); see also ECF No. 205-23 (transcript).) Sanchez had by that time been awake since the previous morning with very little sleep. (ECF No. 204 at 17, ¶ 50.) This fatigue is obvious in the video recording, as Sanchez yawns frequently, sometimes speaks with his eyes closed, and occasionally rests his head on his hands or on the table. (See generally ECF No. 180-1; see also ECF No. 204 at 17, ¶ 54.) Moreover, Sanchez frequently expressed to Mykes and Duffy how tired he was, and he informed them that he had slept for only about two hours over the last two days. (Id.) “Mykes and Duffy [additionally] observed that Sanchez was extremely anxious and his legs frequently shook.” (Id.) Mykes and Duffy also recognized that Sanchez did not match the description of the Quarry Hill sex assault perpetrator. (Id. at 17, ¶ 51.)

         At the beginning of the interrogation, Sanchez timidly attempted to explain his alleged disability to the detectives through the following exchange between himself and Mykes:

Q. Any alcohol on board? Anything like that? Drugs?
A. No. That's what they thought when I talked to them first but-
Q. The reason I'm asking is you seem-
A. 'Cause I usually get hesitated [sic] when I talk to these kind of people.
Q. Any reason why?
A. When I talk to these kind of people like police officers and-
Q. Okay.
A. -all these.
Q. That I understand. When is the last time you had something to eat?

(ECF No. 205-23 at 9-10.) With Mykes's change of subject, Sanchez made no more effort to raise the topic. Soon after, however, Mykes asked him if he had “any kind of medical conditions that we need to be concerned about, ” to which Sanchez answered, “No.” (Id. at 10.)

         Sanchez also made an early effort to explain that he felt coerced by Wolff and Hartley to confess to crimes he did not commit. This came out when Duffy began questioning Sanchez about the route by which he drove home from McDonald's earlier that morning:

Q. How come the different road today, or last night [sic], excuse me?
A. I don't know. I decided it would be quicker.
Q. Okay.
A. Somehow, someone got my license plate then somehow I stopped [somewhere else on the way home from McDonald's], which I didn't. I know that for a fact.
Q. Okay.
A. I'm telling 100 percent honest truth right now.
Q. Okay. Do you remember telling them you stopped?
A. I didn't stop.
Q. Okay. Do you remember telling the other detectives that?
A. I had to tell them-
Q. Because they were different-
A. I had to-
Q. Okay. Go ahead.
A. I had to tell them a different story because they were[n't] being-they were being like cooperative [sic] saying I was lying, saying the same story I said first to you.
Q. Okay.
A. Then saying-
Q. What was the story you told them?
A. The second-
Q. The second time[.]
A. That I stopped and all this, saying I went into somebody's backyard, which I didn't, and I trespassed, which I'm going to be charged. And that's why I'm here, you know?
Q. Okay.
A. Which I didn't trespass. And that's-
Q. But did you tell them that you'd went in that backyard?
A. Unfortunately I had to. Now I can't do nothing about it.
Q. Did you mention seeing anything when you were in that backyard[, ] why you were there? No?
A. No.
Q. You didn't tell them why you were there?
A. I said something like I jumped the fence to-I don't- I don't remember.
Q. Okay.
A. And somehow, they got-somehow they got DNA fingerprints from-I don't know. It's just-I give up.
Q. Okay. Let's get off last night a little bit, okay?

(Id. at 23-26.) Duffy then attempted to steer the interrogation toward his and Mykes's main interest, the Quarry Hill sexual assault:

Q. You had talked a little bit about some other stuff that had been happening in this neighborhood and other neighborhoods. Do you remember that part of the conversation? That had been happening previous weeks, months? Can you tell me what you told them about those other incidents[, ] about that?
A. The-God, I'm too tired. Are you talking about breaking into houses and-
Q. Uh huh.
A. -which, telling me I broke into a house a week and a half ago, which I didn't. I mean, I don't-I can't even speak right now.
Q. How come?
A. I'm just so tired.

(Id. at 26-27.)

         From there, Mykes and Duffy returned to seeking details about the Branham Drive trespass, and also asked about any other similar crimes (without suggesting details), which elicited a confession from Sanchez to some petty thefts from cars, to breaking and entering on occasion with a friend named Brian, to an apparent incident of joyriding with the same friend (discussed in the interview as “carjacking”), and to an underage drinking misdemeanor already on his criminal record from a few months earlier. (Id. at 27-53.) When pressed for details about breaking and entering, however, Sanchez generally had no memory, prompting the following exchange between him and Duffy:

Q. Tyler, one of the things that's really obvious here today is if it's something you know we already know about, like your previous arrest, or just general subject, man, you can just sit there and rattle off and talk to us like nothing-like nothing else.
A. I know, but I'm tired.
Q. But when we talk to you about what we're really here about, then you're tired.
A. I know-I was-
Q. It's time to start talking partner, okay?
A. I was saying-
Q. Do you need-do we want to take a quick break and take a deep breath and sip your Coke for a minute and come back and we'll start fresh and we'll really get into this? Does that sound like a good idea to you? Kind of give you a minute to collect your thoughts and we'll just start-we'll just let you sit there and tell us the story, okay?
All right. Just take a minute. We'll step out for just a minute. We'll give you a minute, okay?
A. This still happened the last time [with] the other two detectives.
Q. Well, I'm not going to be-you know, obviously we're not yelling at you. We're not threatening you, but it is-I'm telling you right now, from our observations and we're both seeing it, that when you want to talk to us, you can and you're not tired and you're able to just tell us the story and this, that and the other, okay?

(Id. at 54-55.)

         The interrogation then ceased for a few minutes. After the break, Mykes and Duffy continued to try and elicit details about the times that Sanchez and “Brian” had allegedly broken and entered into others' houses, prompting Sanchez to state that he and Brian had done so on perhaps five occasions and had stolen things like jewelry and prescription drugs. (Id. at 59-71.) Mykes and Duffy then transitioned to (in Mykes's words) “the one that I really want to talk about . . . . Tell me about last Friday [alluding to the Quarry Hill sexual assault].” (Id. at 73.) Sanchez denied “get[ting] into a house that wasn't [his]” on the previous Friday. (Id. at 74.) That led to the following:[8]

Q [M]. . . . Is there reason that we might have your DNA in a house on Friday?
A. A house where?
Q [M]. In the Stonegate area?
A. Why this?
Q [D]. It's a simple question, Tyler. Is your DNA going to be in a house in Stonegate on Friday?
A. You mean, it was Friday night?
Q [M]. Friday morning. Thursday night to Friday morning.
Sun goes down on Thursday. Comes back up Friday. In between those two times. Here's ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.