The Denver-based federal appeals court concluded last week that a Greeley police officer lacked reasonable suspicion to detain a man who was standing outside the door of a residence and not engaging in any indicators of criminal activity.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized an “implied license” for someone to approach a home, knock on the door and wait briefly to speak with an occupant. By all appearances, that was what Victor Manuel Trevizo Gonzalez appeared to be doing when Det. Kody Brunnemer questioned him and told him, “Don’t move.”

“This is not a difficult or esoteric concept,” wrote Judge Nancy L. Moritz in the Nov. 26 order. “Brunnemer points to nothing more than Gonzalez’s presence at the front door of a possibly vacant home, where he had an implied license to be. There are no particularized facts to suggest that Gonzalez was engaged in criminal activity or was not permitted to be at the front door of the home.”

In January 2021, Brunnemer received a complaint about a potentially vacant property in the 2100 block of 5th Ave. The anonymous neighbor described people coming and going from the property, but without firsthand knowledge of criminal activity. Brunnemer visited the house and, although it appeared vacant, he declined to open an investigation.

Six days later, while driving by close to 10 p.m., Brunnemer spotted Trevizo Gonzalez and another man standing near the door. He pulled up, shone his light on the men and began to question them. Brunnemer told them, “Don’t move,” and returned to his patrol car. When Brunnemer walked back towards them, Trevizo Gonzalez began to pedal away on his bicycle. Brunnemer caught him and arrested him.

Trevizo Gonzalez sued Brunnemer for violating his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures. In April 2024, U.S. District Court Judge Regina M. Rodriguez sided with Trevizo Gonzalez in finding Brunnemer lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him.

“Here, at most, a neighbor had seen unknown individuals at a potentially vacant property on one prior occasion. There is no evidence that Plaintiff was, or even may have been, one of those people,” she wrote. “At the time of the stop, there was no visible criminal activity ‘afoot,’ let alone criminal activity being undertaken by Plaintiff.”

On appeal, Brunnemer argued Rodriguez failed to account for the totality of the circumstances when evaluating whether he had reasonable suspicion Trevizo Gonzalez was trespassing at the house.

“We have a patrol officer who was alerted to a problematic situation with a property,” attorney Michael J. Axelrad argued to the 10th Circuit panel.

“That was a while before the stop occurred, right?” asked Judge Veronica S. Rossman.

“I don’t see any case law or support for the proposition that reasonable suspicion has a shelf life of five days or less,” said Axelrad.

Brunnemer “saw nothing other than them being on the porch,” said Moritz. “It’s perfectly fine for him to go up and check to see and ask questions if he can. But then he seizes them.”

Attorney John Graham, representing Trevizo Gonzalez, argued that an officer’s suspicions of criminal activity at some point in the past do not give him authority to detain anyone in that area later.

“Here, he’s observed in a moment doing what anyone has the ability to do. Girl Scouts, solicitors — any person has the ability to approach a house,” Graham said. “Here, there are simply no facts to suggest he was doing anything other than that.”

The 10th Circuit panel agreed with him.

“Indeed, when Brunnemer himself investigated the property the prior week, he likewise knocked on the door,” wrote Moritz. “Perhaps if Brunnemer had observed Gonzalez for longer or continued his voluntary conversation with Gonzalez, he might have developed particularized suspicion, but he chose to proceed on a hunch instead.”

The case is Trevizo Gonzalez v. Brunnemer et al.