Case Download

---

Laramie Plains Properties v. Andrew Devney

Albany County District Court • Case No. 2024-CV-0036328

What Happened on March 21, 2024

On the morning of March 21, 2024, two maintenance workers for Laramie Plains Properties used a digital code to enter my apartment without notice while I was asleep naked on my couch, covered only by a blanket.

I told them I was not decent and asked them to come back.

They did not leave.

I eventually called 911.

This incident triggered deep fear, humiliation, and a sense of violation — not only because of the intrusion itself, but because Wyoming law currently provides no required notice, no tenant privacy protections, and no standard for how landlords must enter a home.

What happened to me can legally happen to any Wyoming renter.

What the Court Ruled

On November 3, 2025, after hearing testimony from all parties, the judge ruled in favor of the defendants on all claims:

• Intrusion Upon Seclusion
• Invasion of Privacy
• Trespass
• Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

The ruling relied heavily on a lease clause that allowed the landlord to enter “without notice at any time.”

But now that the official transcript is available, it’s clear where the system — and the law — failed.

What the Transcript Reveals

The judge’s own words illustrate the deeper issues in Wyoming’s tenant laws and the reasoning used to dismiss the privacy violation.

1. The Judge Refused to Judge Credibility

One of the most concerning lines from the transcript:

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

(Transcript, p. 5)

But our testimonies were not similar.

I testified that I said I was not decent.

The maintenance workers denied hearing it.

I said they didn’t wait at the door.

They claimed they did.

Credibility is the central function of a bench trial — and it was never evaluated.

2. “Consent” Was Treated as Mandatory Because the Portal Forced It

The judge acknowledged:

“There may have been a glitch… you couldn’t check ‘no’ to consent.”

(Transcript, p. 11)

Yet she still held that I “consented” to the entry.

The maintenance request system forced tenants to agree to entry before it would submit.

This is not meaningful consent.

But the court treated it as absolute.

3. The Judge Declared Wyoming Law Allows Entry “At Any Time” Without Notice

The ruling contains the most alarming policy conclusion:

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

(Transcript, p. 20)

This interpretation means:

• no required notice
• no required knock-and-wait
• no schedule
• no protection for vulnerable moments
• no limit on who can enter

This is not tenant privacy.

This is open access.

And Wyoming law currently allows it.

4. Sexual Vulnerability and Safety Were Ignored

I testified that being a gay man in Wyoming — and being naked under a blanket in front of two men — made the situation terrifying.

The judge wrote:

“There was no evidence linking their actions to sexual orientation.”

No consideration was given to the power imbalance, vulnerability, or the trauma associated with being seen naked, especially by two male workers.

5. My Past Trauma Was Used to Dismiss My Fear

The judge acknowledged my childhood experiences but ultimately concluded:

“The actions of the defendants did not rise to the level necessary to create liability.”

(Transcript, p. 29)

In other words:

because I had trauma, my response was considered oversensitive, and not a reasonable reaction to having two men enter while I slept naked.

6. The Court Treated Me as a “Sophisticated Renter,” and Therefore Less Entitled to Protection

Because I previously lived in major cities and had rented multiple apartments over the years, the judge wrote:

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

(Transcript, p. 18)

This was used to dismiss:

• the power imbalance
• the lack of negotiation
• the forced nature of the lease terms
• the lack of legal alternatives in a small market

This logic effectively says:

“If you’ve rented before, you knew what you were signing up for — even if the terms violate privacy.”

The Reality of Wyoming’s Tenant Laws

Wyoming is one of only a handful of states that:

• does not require notice before a landlord enters
• does not define a minimum waiting period
• does not restrict entry to emergencies
• does not define privacy protections for tenants
• does not address forced consent through digital portals

This case exposes a legal gap that leaves tenants unprotected, especially during vulnerable moments like sleep, nudity, illness, showers, or intimate situations.

The law needs to change.

Why This Case Matters

This isn’t just about what happened to me.

This is about ensuring it doesn’t happen to anyone else.

Without reform, any Wyoming renter could be:

• walked in on while sleeping
• walked in on naked
• walked in on while showering
• walked in on with no time to respond
• walked in on by multiple maintenance workers
• walked in on even after asking for advance notice

This case shows that the current law favors landlord convenience over tenant dignity, safety, and privacy.

This website exists to advocate for change.

What Comes Next

I’m working to use this case to push for:

✔ Mandatory notice for entry

✔ Real consent options in maintenance systems

✔ Clear emergency vs. non-emergency rules

✔ Privacy protections aligned with national norms

✔ LGBTQ+ safety considerations

✔ Stronger tenant rights during vulnerable situations

✔ Transparency and accountability for property managers

Wyoming deserves modern tenant-privacy laws.

Your home should be your sanctuary — not a space landlords can walk into at any time.

This page will never accuse any individual or company of wrongdoing.
It will cite public documents only, with no added claims, interpretations, or editorial framing.

This is not legal advice.