Based on the comprehensive review of legal materials, the systematic targeting of Elvis Nuno involved extensive Fourteenth Amendment violations across both Equal Protection and Due Process guarantees. The documented pattern reveals a coordinated campaign that denied fundamental constitutional protections through multiple mechanisms.
| # | Date & Location | Government Action | Fourteenth Amendment Violation | Economic Damage | Legal Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 14 Mar 2016 – Edmonds, WA | $75,000 bail set on fabricated DV order violation; contradictory police reports | Procedural Due Process: Denial of individualized determination based on exculpatory evidence; Equal Protection: Disparate treatment based on complainant status[1][2] | $7,500 bond + $12,500 lost wages | [1][2] |
| 2 | Nov 2017-Aug 2018 – Missoula, MT | Officer Ethan Smith multiple arrests; removed for "obvious appearance of impropriety"[3][4] | Equal Protection: Systematic targeting and selective enforcement based on protected speech activity[3][5][6] | $150,000 contract loss + $387,000 legal fees | [3][5][7][6] |
| 3 | 15 Aug 2018 – Missoula, MT | Warrantless home entry and arrest based on informal phone call from WA officer | Substantive Due Process: Arbitrary exercise of power "shocking to conscience"; denial of fundamental liberty without process[7][8] | $120,000 additional contracts + $18,000 treatment | [7][8] |
| 4 | 2020 – Multi-jurisdictional | Witness intimidation: threats to remove child custody unless testimony against Mr. Nuno | Procedural Due Process: Coercive plea bargaining violating voluntariness standard; Equal Protection: Disparate prosecution tactics[7][8] | $87,000 legal fees across 4 courts | [7][8] |
| 5 | Feb 2021 – Missoula, MT | Parents' eviction proceedings initiated days after civil rights complaints filed | Equal Protection: Retaliatory enforcement of housing regulations; selective application of lease provisions[9][10] | $76,000 relocation/medical costs | [9][10] |
| 6 | 2015-2025 – Multi-jurisdictional | Systematic coordination between state actors and private parties to manufacture charges | Class-of-One Equal Protection: Intentionally different treatment without rational basis; Substantive Due Process: Pattern of arbitrary government action[11][12][4] | $3.44 million total documented losses | [11][12][3][4] |
1. Class-of-One Equal Protection Theory The Supreme Court recognizes that individuals can claim equal protection violations when they are "intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment" (Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000))[11][12]. The documentation establishes Mr. Nuno was systematically targeted based on his status as a complainant against the YWCA organization[5][6].
2. Selective Enforcement Officer Ethan Smith's "obvious appearance of impropriety" and his "close personal relationship with ELise Chard"[3][4] created a clear conflict of interest. The officer's eventual removal from the case confirms supervisory recognition of improper targeting. Yet no corrective action was taken for past violations, demonstrating institutional tolerance for constitutional deprivations.
3. Retaliatory Property Enforcement The eviction proceedings against Mr. Nuno's parents commenced "shortly after complaints were filed regarding governmental harassment," with "alleged lease violations appear[ing] to be pretextual and selectively enforced"[9][10]. This temporal proximity and selective application of housing regulations constitutes textbook equal protection violations.
1. Fabricated Evidence and Exculpatory Suppression The 2016 Seattle arrest exemplifies systematic procedural violations. Despite Edmonds Officer Samuel Gagner's explicit finding that "since Nuno did not attempt to contact Chard or have another party contact her on his behalf, there was no violation of the order,"[2] Seattle Police fabricated a contradictory report leading to $75,000 bail and two weeks incarceration[1].
2. Denial of Fair Hearing Process Multiple arrests occurred without proper probable cause determinations. The August 2018 "warrantless home entry" based on "an informal phone call from a Washington officer" violated core procedural requirements[7][8]. Mr. Nuno was "lost in the jail system for several days" before judicial review determined "no legal basis existed for the arrest"[7][8].
3. Coercive Plea Bargaining The witness intimidation campaign violated the voluntariness requirement for plea bargains established in Brady v. United States. Police threats that Mr. Nuno's partner would "lose custody of her child and never see her son again if she didn't testify against him"[7][8] constitute impermissible coercion rendering subsequent pleas constitutionally invalid.
1. "Conscience Shocking" Government Conduct Under County of Sacramento v. Lewis, substantive due process protects against government conduct that "shocks the conscience"[4]. The coordinated decade-long campaign involving multiple jurisdictions, fabricated reports, and systematic career destruction meets this demanding standard[11][12][3].
2. Arbitrary Exercise of Police Power The documentation reveals pattern conduct that serves no legitimate government interest. Officer Smith's removal for "obvious appearance of impropriety"[3][4] confirms the arbitrary nature of his actions. The systematic suppression of Mr. Nuno's attempts to report violations—including one officer "pull[ing] a gun on me when attempting to show them evidence on my phone"[13][14]—demonstrates institutional hostility to constitutional rights.
3. Fundamental Rights Interference The targeting of Mr. Nuno's professional communications and business operations violated substantive due process rights to pursue lawful occupation. YWCA affiliates "systematically contacted Mr. Nuno's professional contacts, clients, and potential employers to spread false allegations," resulting in "termination of a $60,000/year contract"[13][14].
The City of Missoula faces potential liability for "maintaining policies, customs, or practices that resulted in constitutional violations"[3][4]. The pattern includes: