Excessive Force and Unlawful Detention
Walker v. City of Orem

Employment Discrimination
Etsitty v. Utah Transit Authority

Fourth Amendment
Regan v. County of Salt Lake

Lesbian and Gay Equality
Norman v. Anderson

Free Speech and Police Practices
Uprock v. Tracy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.”