|
home > legal work
Case Resolutions
2007
Excessive Force and Unlawful Detention
Walker v. City of Orem
Employment Discrimination
Etsitty v. Utah Transit
Authority
2006
Fourth Amendment
Regan v. County of Salt
Lake
Lesbian and Gay Equality
Norman v. Anderson
Free Speech and Police Practices
Uprock v. Tracy
2005
Free Speech and Separation of Church
and State
Utah Gospel Mission v. Salt Lake City Corporation
Right to Anonymous Speech
Merkey v. Yahoo SCOX
(Amicus Brief)
First Amendment and Due Process Kinter v. Cache County
2004
Freedom
of Speech Larsen
v. City of Draper
Unreasonable
Search and Seizure U.S.
v. Esparza-Mendoza
Due
Process Perry
v. State of Utah
Nuttall v. Salt Lake County
Religious
Freedom Nathan Clark v. Iron County
2003
Free
Speech Ogden
City v. Bruce Edwards and Bruce Edwards
v. Ogden City
First
Amendment and Lesbian and Gay Rights
Citizens of Nebo School District v. Weaver
Open
and Public Meetings Rick Curtis v. Utah State Child
Support Guidelines Advisory Committee
Free
Speech and Separation of Church and State First Unitarian Church v. Salt Lake City Corporation
2002
Free
Speech State of Utah v. Ian Michael Lake
Right
to Appointed Counsel State of Utah v. Paul Johnson
Commercial
Speech B. L. Brereton v. Salt Lake
County
B.
L. Brereton v. Taylorsville City Corporation
B. L. Brereton v. Holladay City Corporation
B.
L. Brereton v. Draper City
Mobile Media on the Go v. Salt Lake City Corporation
Privacy Salt Lake City v. Keith Roberts
2001
Equal
Protection and First Amendment Rights to Free Speech and Redress of
Grievances Alvarez v. State of Utah
Free
Speech and Free Exercise of Religion Van Gorden v. Utah State Fair
Open
and Public Meetings Kearns
Tribune Corporation v. Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
Open
Records ACLU of Utah v. Utah Olympic Public Safety Command
Right
to Protest and Equal Protection Utah Animal Rights Coalition v. State of Utah
Unlawful
Search Foote v. Spiegel
2000
Age
Discrimination Burton v. Exam Center Industrial
Free
Speech and Right to Petition the Government Guido v. Utah State Fair Corporation
Unlawful
Search Skultin
v. Bushnell
Ex
Post Facto and Due Process Violations Femedeer
v. Department of Corrections
Governmental
Accountability Craig
Axford v. Salt Lake Corporation
Equal
Protection Utah Children v. Utah Division of Child and Family
Services
Racial
Profiling Mani Kang v. Utah State Department of Public Safety
Students’
Rights to Free Speech and Association East High Gay/Straight Alliance v. Board of Education
and
East High School PRISM Club v. Cynthia L. Seidel
Open
and Public Meetings Humane Society of Utah v. Utah Wildlife Board
1999
Religious
Discrimination Larson v. Provo School District
Privacy Roe
v. Utah County
Free
Speech and Right to Petition the Government Slevin
v. Salt Lake County Fair
Unlawful
Search Valdez v. McPheters
1998
First
Amendment and Lesbian and Gay Rights Weaver v. Nebo School District
Illegally
Constituted Juries Crank
v. Utah Judicial Council
HIV/AIDS Allred v. Solaray
Unlawful
Search Laughter
v. Kay
1997
Treatment
of Prison Inmates with Mental Illness NLS v. Jones
Open
and Public Meetings Jolley
v. Utah State Senate
Racial
and Religious Harassment Silvermans v. State of Utah
Reproductive
Rights Jane L. v. Bangerter
Jail
Conditions Bennett v. Utah County
Death
Penalty State of Utah v. Simmons and State of
Utah v. Gardner
Case Summaries
Walker v. City of
Orem
Excessive Force
On December 29, 1998, David Walker was
shot four times by law enforcement in the driveway of his American Fork
family home where he lived with his parents. His parents witnessed the
shooting, as did his two sisters and his brother-in-law who lived next
door on the same lot. Law enforcement was looking for David because
his family had reported the car he was driving as stolen. They did this
because they knew David was suicidal, and were told that if the vehicle
were reported stolen, law enforcement could assist in locating David.
David’s location was identified and, after he evaded the officers,
an eventual slow-speed chase ensued. Officers from Orem, Pleasant Grove,
and Utah County responded to various reports on dispatch, one of which
stated that David was suicidal and returning to the family home. There,
David exited the car, and family members came outside to see what the
commotion was. Standing in front of the car, David held a small knife
to his wrist. Within seconds, several shots were fired and hit David.
After the shooting, law enforcement officers aggressively kept the family
inside the house for questioning and did not permit them to follow David
to the hospital, where he died approximately 90 minutes later.
In 1999, the Walker family filed a section 1983 civil action case in
federal district court against the Orem City Police Department, the
Pleasant Grove Police Department, and the Utah County Sheriff’s
Department, charging law enforcement with excessive force and unlawful
detention. In April 2004, the ACLU of Utah joined with the law firm
of Strindberg Scholnick & Chamness in representing the Walker family
in their case.
Two Utah County officers named in the original lawsuit asked to
be dismissed from the case. The district court denied the officers’ Motion
to Dismiss, and Utah County appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
on that issue. On November 22, 2004, we submitted a brief in which we argued that the officers should not be dismissed from the
case. The district court granted the Utah County defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment based on qualified immunity. Because all
the other claims remaining in the suit were already being appealed to
the Tenth Circuit, the Walker family requested permission to appeal
the summary judgment decision, and on May 23, 2005, we submitted a brief arguing that the Utah County defendants were not entitled to qualified
immunity and summary judgment. The brief argued that the Utah County
officers violated clearly established law surrounding the Fourth Amendment’s
prohibition on illegal searches and seizures when they illegally detained
the Walker family after David was shot.
On June 27, 2006, the Tenth Circuit issued an opinion in four consolidated appeals in the Walker case. The court held that, “the lengthy detention alleged in this case was unreasonable and was not justified by either the need for investigation of a crime or control of a crime scene. … [P]laintiffs have adequately alleged a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.” However, the court also held that the reasonable duration of such a detention was not “clearly established” at the time of the events in question, and as a result, it allowed the dismissal of claims against Utah County and two Utah County Sheriff’s officers. In other words, the court held that plaintiffs’ allegations amounted to an illegal detention, but, because previous cases did not define the reasonable duration of such a detention, the officers could not be expected to know that their conduct violated the Fourth Amendment and therefore were not liable for their actions. In the future, law enforcement officers should be aware that similar detentions may violate the Fourth Amendment, based on this decision. In the opinion, the appellate court refused to dismiss the suit against two police officers, one from Orem and the other from Pleasant Grove.
Consistent with the appellate court’s ruling, the two officers were tried by a jury in October 2007. The jury ruled against the plaintiffs. Nevertheless, the courageous action by the Walker family in pursuing this suit was not in vain. The case stands for the proposition that unreasonable officer conduct is not shielded by the cloak of immunity. Additionally, this case set the standard for unlawful detentions by police in similar situations.
Return to top of page
Etsitty v. Utah Transit
Authority
Employment Discrimination
In February 2002, Krystal Etsitty was
fired from the Utah Transit Authority where she had worked as a bus
driver for several months. The termination came shortly after she revealed
to her employers that she is a transsexual, and although her employers
had received no complaints about her, they informed her that she was
being fired because they could not determine which restroom she should
use. Etsitty, who identifies and lives as a woman, has legally changed
her name from Michael to Krystal and has changed her Utah driver’s
license designation from male to female. UTA told her she would be eligible
for rehire only after undergoing sex reassignment surgery.
Etsitty, represented by the law firm of Strindberg & Scholnick,
argued in federal court that she was protected by Title VII of the 1964
Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination based on
sex, including nonconformity to sex stereotypes. In June
2005, the district court granted summary judgment to UTA, holding that
transgender people are not protected by Title VII, and that even if Title
VII did apply, UTA’s decision was not based on Etsitty’s
lack of conformity to sex stereotypes. Etsitty then asked the Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the district court’s decision.
In October 2005, the ACLU of Utah, the ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project,
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the National Center for
Lesbian Rights filed an amicus
brief with the Tenth Circuit on behalf of Etsitty.
On September 20, 2007, the Tenth Circuit issued an opinion in which it affirmed the district court’s decision in favor of UTA, concluding that “discrimination against a transsexual because she is a transsexual is not ‘discrimination because of sex,’” and that “transsexuals are not a protected class under Title VII.” We believe this decision is out of step with the current trend, which is for both state and federal courts to recognize that discrimination against transgender people is by its very nature rooted in sex discrimination. The Tenth Circuit decision calls attention to the need for federal legislation prohibiting discrimination based solely on the fact that an employee is transgender.
Return to top of page
Regan v. County of
Salt Lake
Fourth Amendment
In 1982, ACLU cooperating attorneys Bob
Anderson, Rocky Anderson, and Wayne McCormick filed an action against
the Salt Lake County Jail for Fourth Amendment violations. In the original
case, law enforcement officers pulled over Judith Regan, an out-of-state
reporter, for a traffic violation. Regan refused to sign the ticket
because it required a statement that she would appear in court within
a specific time frame, and she knew she would no longer be in Salt Lake
City at that time. She was then handcuffed and eventually strip searched
by county law enforcement, in violation of her Fourth Amendment right
to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
As a result of the action, a consent decree was entered into that restricted
the circumstances under which the Salt Lake County Jail could constitutionally
conduct strip searches. In November 2004, the county asked the Federal
District Court to terminate the consent decree, claiming that there
are no current constitutional violations and that current search procedures
at the jail meet constitutional standards. Under the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, passed by Congress in 1996, consent decrees that exceed
constitutional standards may be terminated in appropriate cases.
On November 30, 2004, the ACLU of Utah and cooperating attorney Bob Anderson filed a memorandum opposing Salt Lake County’s motion in which we requested that the consent decree not be terminated until the plaintiffs had a chance to review search procedures at the jail. We also filed a motion asking the court to appoint an expert to review jail procedures and complaints. If a review revealed that there were no violations of federal rights at the Salt Lake County Jail, and if current policy passed constitutional muster, then we argued that termination of the consent decree may be reasonable.
At a December 20, 2004 hearing, U.S. District Court Judge Bruce S. Jenkins refused to consider Salt Lake County’s motion to terminate the consent decree because it had submitted only a draft revision of its strip search policy.
On January 12, 2005, Salt Lake County refiled its motion to terminate the consent decree, after having revised and finalized its policy. On February 11, 2005, we filed a second motion opposing termination. On October 18, 2005, the court requested that the county supplement the record, identifying with specificity how its current policy incorporated the substance of the consent decree.
After reviewing the supplemental briefing and the record, the court issued a ruling on December 11, 2006, granting Salt Lake County’s request to terminate the consent decree. The court was satisfied that Salt Lake County’s policy “incorporates in substance the requirements of the Consent Decree,” making the decree no longer necessary. The court also noted that the decree was no longer necessary because there was no evidence of current and ongoing constitutional violations of detainees’ federal rights.
Return to top of page
Norman v. Anderson
Lesbian and Gay Equality
On September 21, 2005, Salt Lake City Mayor
Rocky Anderson signed an executive order to extend health and other employment
benefits to city employees’ same-sex and heterosexual domestic partners.
Less than a week later, the governing body of the agency that administers
health insurance for state and local government employees filed a petition
with the state court requesting clarification about whether Utah law prohibits
Salt Lake City from offering health insurance benefits to domestic partners.
Specifically, the Utah State Retirement Board cited Utah’s constitutional
amendment prohibiting the government from giving same-sex relationships
the “same or substantially equivalent legal effect” as marriage,
as well as Utah’s Marriage Recognition Policy, which states that
Utah will not recognize any law that creates benefits for unmarried couples
that are “substantially equivalent” to marriage.
On November 10, 2005, the ACLU of Utah, the national ACLU, Salt Lake City
Police Department employee Dianna Goodliffe, and the local branch of the
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
filed an amicus brief in support of Salt Lake City’s executive order. In our brief, we
argue that there is nothing in Utah’s statutory or constitutional
law that prohibits Salt Lake City from offering domestic partner benefits,
that health insurance is not “substantially equivalent” to
marriage, and that there are strong public policy arguments in favor of
making such benefits available.
In February 2006, the Salt Lake City Council voted to replace Mayor Anderson’s
benefits plan with one that allows unmarried city employees to sign up
“adult designees” for health insurance. In addition to domestic
partners, such designees could be relatives or roommates. On May 11, 2006, Third District Judge Stephen Roth issued a ruling stating that the Council’s benefit plan was not in violation of Utah law. The judge also acknowledged the policy arguments in favor of providing more expansive benefit plans, noting that, “as a practical matter single employees may have relationships outside of marriage, whether motivated by family feeling, emotional attachment or practical considerations, which draw on their resources to provide the necessaries of life, including health care.” Salt Lake City has indicated that it will implement the new benefits plan immediately.
Return to top of page
Uprock v. Tracy
Free Speech and Police Practices
On August 20, 2005, Utah County law enforcement officers raided and shut down an outdoor electronic music concert taking place on a private ranch in Spanish Fork Canyon. Police did not have warrants to enter the property or to search concertgoers, and Utah County Sheriff James Tracy authorized and implemented the raid based largely on the presumption that the concert would continue beyond the twelve hours for which the promoters had secured the necessary permits. The raid, however, occurred only a few hours into the concert. On September 26, 2005, the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project joined in a lawsuit that had already been filed by Salt Lake City civil rights attorney Brian Barnard. The complaint charged law enforcement with widespread violations of the First Amendment, due process, and Fourth Amendment rights of the concert promoters and venue owners. On April 10, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the case without prejudice, reserving their right to refile the case in the future.
Return to top of page
Utah Gospel Mission
v. Salt Lake City Corporation
Free Speech and Separation of Church and State
In June 2003, the Salt Lake City Council
set in motion a second lawsuit involving the public’s First Amendment
rights on the Main Street Plaza when it voted 6-0 to swap the plaza’s
public easement for land owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints on the west side of town and funds to create a new community
center. The vote came seven months after the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled on the ACLU of Utah’s first
Main Street case, holding that the easement was a public forum with
the accompanying First Amendment rights, and that any viewpoint-based
restrictions associated with the easement were unconstitutional. Since
the Tenth Circuit’s ruling, city leaders struggled to find a way
to both appease the desires of the LDS Church to control expression
on the plaza and to honor the community’s expectation that the
plaza would remain a public forum. Unfortunately, the city chose to
protect the church’s religious use of the property and to prevent
anyone with viewpoints other than those endorsed by the church to express
them on what used to be downtown Main Street.
In August 2003, the ACLU of Utah and the national ACLU filed a lawsuit
(see our final amended
complaint filed December 2003) asking the federal court to examine
everything surrounding the exchange of the public easement to determine
whether the city set aside its long-stated and valid public policy for
pedestrian access and passage through the Main Street Plaza in order
to accommodate the LDS Church’s desire to impose discriminatory
restrictions on speech expressed on that property. The brief maintained
that the city’s action violated the free speech rights of its
citizens and represented an unconstitutional endorsement of the LDS
Church. In May 2004, the Utah Federal Court dismissed the case, and
that same month, we appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (see
the amended
brief we filed in September 2004). In an October 3, 2005
decision, the Tenth Circuit dismissed all of our claims, ruling
that the Main Street Plaza is no longer a public forum and that the
city’s decision to sell the easement did not violate the Establishment
Clause. Unfortunately for Salt Lake City residents, this decision may
precipitate the loss of a central public forum of the type that was
held in high esteem by our country’s founders who valued, rather
than stifled, diverse viewpoints.
More information on the Main Street cases
>>
Return to top of page
Merkey v. Yahoo
SCOX
Right to Anonymous Speech
On August 17, 2005, the ACLU of Utah and
the Electronic Frontier Foundation
(EFF) filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the First Amendment right to speak anonymously on issues
of public concern. The brief was in regards to a U.S. District Court case
that arose, in part, out of anonymous postings from a Yahoo group and
several weblogs. Utah plaintiff Jeffrey Merkey requested an expedited
process for serving subpoenas unmasking anonymous critics who participated
in an online discussion about another court case in which the Utah-based
technology company SCO Group, Inc. is suing IBM. The ACLU of Utah and
the EFF argued that before an online speaker is exposed, litigants must
show that the anonymous poster’s identity is central to their claims,
that those claims are viable, and that the litigant can acquire the information
in no other manner. The Utah District Court agreed and demanded that Merkey
submit additional information showing his good faith efforts to contact
the defendants, the likelihood of jurisdiction, and the viability of his
claims. Instead, Merkey declined to submit the requested information and,
on August 26, he dismissed the anonymous Yahoo message board defendants
from the case.
Return to top of page
Kinter v. Cache County
First Amendment and Due Process
John Morris Kinter was a federal pre-trial detainee
in the Cache County Jail. In January 2005, he ordered and paid for a legal
dictionary that was mailed to him at the jail. When the book arrived that
month, officials informed him that according to jail policy, the dictionary
now belonged to the Cache County Jail and would remain at that facility
after Kinter’s release or transfer. On February 15, 2005, the ACLU
of Utah and cooperating attorney Brian Barnard filed a federal lawsuit on Kinter’s behalf asking that the policy be declared unconstitutional
because it violates inmates’ First Amendment rights and because
the confiscation of books is an unconstitutional taking without due process.
Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Cache County Jail informally changed
its policy and Kinter was allowed to take his book when he was transferred
to another facility. As a result of these actions, we withdrew from the
case. We will continue to monitor how Cache County Jail implements its book policy.
Return to top of page
Larsen
v. City of Draper
Free Speech
On September
14, 2004, the ACLU of Utah and cooperating attorney Brian Barnard filed
a complaint and temporary
restraining order in Federal District Court challenging as unconstitutional
a Draper City ordinance that impermissibly
placed durational time limits on political campaign signs according
to the content of the signs. In part, the ordinance prohibited display of many candidates’ signs on private property more than thirty
days prior to the general election.
The plaintiffs
in this suit were: Robert Latham, a Draper resident and attorney who
wished to display campaign and political issue signs in his yard, but was thwarted by the city ordinance; Heather Rice, who was concerned
about being cited for placing campaign signs for the candidate of her
choice in a yard in Draper; and Ken Larsen, a candidate running for
Utah governor under the People’s Choice party, who would have
liked to immediately begin posting his campaign signs in visible Draper
front yards.
The
suit called for an immediate temporary restraining order to prohibit
Draper from enforcing the ordinance because it unconstitutionally interfered with free expression and political speech as defined by the First Amendment
to the United States Constitution and the Utah Constitution.
Less
than 48 hours after the complaint and request for an injunction were
filed, Draper City agreed not to enforce the offending ordinance between September 15, 2004 and November 2, 2004, Election Day. On October 22,
2004, Draper City agreed to repeal the ordinance. As part of the settlement,
the Draper City attorney agreed to write to city attorneys in all other
cities in Salt Lake County suggesting they review and repeal similar
ordinances.
Return to top of page
U.S.
v. Esparza-Mendoza
Unreasonable Search and Seizure
In May 2003, U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell ruled that the Fourth
Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches or seizures by
law enforcement officers did not apply to undocumented immigrants who
have previously been deported because of a felony charge. This unprecedented
ruling was based on a case involving Jorge Esparza-Mendoza, a Mexican
national who was prosecuted in 2002 for illegally reentering the United
States. Law enforcement learned of Esparza-Mendoza’s immigration
status after he was detained and questioned by Salt Lake County Sheriff’s
officers when his parked car was damaged in an altercation and he declined
to make a claim for the damage or show identification to the deputies
investigating the matter. The Utah Federal Court held that Esparza-Mendoza’s
detention was an illegal seizure but that the Fourth Amendment did not
apply to him or any other “previously-removed alien felons.”
|