Transcript Quotes and Analysis

---

A breakdown of the court’s oral ruling in Devney v. Laramie Plains Properties

November 3, 2025 • Albany County District Court • Case No. 2024-CV-0036328

Why This Page Matters

The official transcript of the judge’s oral ruling reveals how the decision was reached, what legal standards were applied, and where the system failed to protect tenant privacy.

This page highlights the most important lines from the transcript, followed by a simple, factual analysis of what those statements mean.

All quotes come directly from the certified court transcript.

1. Credibility Was Not Evaluated

Quote

“I did not have to judge the credibility of the witnesses because I found the stories of this event to be so similar.”

(Transcript, p. 5)

Analysis

In a bench trial, the judge is the jury.

Her primary job is to evaluate testimony and determine who is telling the truth.

Here, she chose not to.

This is one of the most significant failures in the ruling. The testimonies were not similar — they conflicted on key issues such as:

• whether I said I was not decent
• how long they waited at the door
• whether they heard me ask them to leave
• how long they stayed after being told to leave
• 
  

By refusing to engage in credibility assessment, the ruling defaults to the defendants’ version.

This undermines the entire decision.

2. “Consent” Was Forced Through a Maintenance Portal

Quote

“There may have been a glitch… you couldn’t check ‘no’ to consent. So if you wanted to submit the form, you had to provide permission.”

(Transcript, p. 11)

Analysis

The system forced tenants to consent to entry.

This is not meaningful consent under any standard — legal, ethical, or practical.

Yet the judge used this forced-selection checkbox as a foundation for dismissing all privacy claims.

This reveals a major tenant-rights gap:

digital platforms can override real-world consent.

3. The Court Declared No-Notice Entry Completely Legal

Quote

“The lease clearly gave Laramie Plains the ability to enter the residence without notice at any time.”

(Transcript, p. 20)

Analysis

This statement exposes the core problem with Wyoming law.

According to this interpretation:

• landlords can enter without notice
• at any time
• for any non-emergency reason
• even if the tenant is naked, sleeping, or vulnerable
• even if the tenant previously asked for advance notice
• even if multiple men enter the home

This is not just about my case — it’s a statewide issue.

Wyoming has no required notice law for rental entry, unlike almost every other state.

4. The Court Treated Me as “Sophisticated,” Reducing My Protections

Quote

“Mr. Devney was a sophisticated renter… with meaningful choice.”

(Transcript, p. 18)

Analysis

Because I previously lived in large cities and rented multiple apartments over 15 years, the court concluded I had “meaningful choice” when signing the lease.

This ignores reality:

• Laramie has extremely limited housing supply
• The lease was non-negotiable
• Forced-consent clauses existed in both leases
• Prior unwanted entries were already occurring
• Signing a lease does not waive fundamental privacy rights

This reasoning sets a troubling precedent:

experienced renters get fewer protections.

5. LGBTQ+ Safety Concerns Were Minimally Addressed

Quote

“There was no evidence linking the actions during the incident to sexual orientation.”

(Transcript, p. 24)

Analysis

The court acknowledged I am gay and understood the concerns, but did not consider:

• the vulnerability of being naked under a blanket
• the power imbalance of two male workers entering
• Wyoming’s social environment
• implicit bias
• the emotional trauma associated with exposure
• 
  

There was no effort to assess the impact of sexual vulnerability — only whether the defendants were intentionally discriminatory.

This misses the broader context entirely.

6. My Past Trauma Was Used to Explain Away My Distress

Quote

“This case presents an interesting issue related to the ‘egg shell’ or ‘thin skulled’ plaintiff.”

(Transcript, p. 26)

Analysis

The judge recognized my childhood trauma but used it solely to suggest that:

• my reaction was more intense
• the defendants could not reasonably foresee it
• therefore liability should not apply

This effectively pathologizes the victim while excusing the intrusion.

The law should protect vulnerable individuals — not weaponize vulnerability to deny relief.

7. The Court Assumed They Did Not Know I Was Naked

Quote

“There was no evidence that Mr. Thatcher or Mr. Ours knew that Mr. Devney was naked until the 911 call.”

(Transcript, p. 33)

Analysis

This ignores key facts:

• I testified that I said I was “not decent” as they entered.
• The 911 call shows panic consistent with immediate embarrassment.
• Both workers admitted seeing me on the couch under a blanket.

Even if they did not know initially, they knew once I said it — and stayed anyway.

The court does not address why they did not immediately leave after that moment.

8. The Judge Found No Outrage Despite the Circumstances

Quote

“There was nothing extreme or outrageous about what happened in this case.”

(Transcript, p. 33)

Analysis

Two men entering a tenant’s apartment without notice while he is naked and asleep — and then refusing to leave — is exactly the kind of invasive scenario most reasonable people would consider outrageous.

This conclusion reflects a significant disconnect between:

• human lived experience, and
• the rigidity of Wyoming’s current landlord-tenant standards

9. The Judge Emphasized the Thermostat as Justification

Quote

“It was not safe to leave the thermostat with the wires exposed.”

(Transcript, p. 22)

Analysis

The thermostat was not an emergency.

And even if it were important, safety concerns do not override a tenant’s bodily privacy.

They could have:

• stepped outside
• scheduled a return time
• covered the wires temporarily
• waited until I put on clothing

None of these were discussed.

Conclusion

The transcript makes clear that the ruling was not just about what happened on March 21, 2024 — it was about the absence of tenant protections in Wyoming law.

These quotes highlight:

• the judge’s reliance on boilerplate lease language
• the treatment of forced digital consent as valid
• the lack of required notice laws
• the dismissal of vulnerability and trauma
• the absence of meaningful privacy protections in Wyoming statutes
• the systemic preference for landlord access over tenant dignity

This case demonstrates why Wyoming must modernize its tenant privacy laws.