Friday, December 06, 2013

Salt Lake Tribune: Alleged Ogden Gang Members Plan Suit Over Injunction

Hopefully Weber County's malpractice insurance is fully paid up

Notable development in the Ogden Trece Gang Injunction matter, as the Salt Lake Tribune reports this morning that in the wake of the Utah Supreme Court's October decision, which "threw out" the Weber County's vaunted anti-gang injunction lawsuit on the grounds of defective service of process, the taxpayers of Weber County now find themselves at risk of significant economic blowback, as "defense attorney Michael Studebaker, who represents some of the alleged gang members, has filed a notice of claim detailing his intent to sue the county and police." Yesiree folks, there's a lawsuit coming up, with a potential Weber County taxpayer liability which could amount to as much as ten million bucks:
"It’s the appropriate measure to take simply because these people were wrongfully enjoined," Studebaker said Wednesday. "My clients’ rights were violated. ... These people should be compensated for the actions of the government and what they did."

Undaunted by this latest setback, Weber County Attorney Dee Smith however "endeavors to persevere" and vows to "soldier on":
Weber County Attorney Dee Smith declined to comment on the potential litigation. He said prosecutors continue to work on a way to fix the issue with how the injunction is served, and hopes to put it back in place.
"The gang injunction is something that is important to this community," Smith said. "We intend to move forward with it."
It'll be fascinating to find out whether Smith can "pull a rabbit out of his hat," and salvage a situation which appears, at this juncture at least, to be a Michael Studebaker legal "checkmate." 

The sodden and thorny question, of course: How do you go about serving a loose "association" of individuals who have no "formal" leadership structure?

Hopefully the County's malpractice insurance is fully paid up.

We'll of course keep you all posted on future developments in this matter, folks.

9 comments:

Bob Becker said...

Loitering on private property, and vandalism can be handled by existing laws. Specific individuals can be injoined from coming onto Maverick's property. But the wildly over-broad applies to anyone the police say now or in the future is a gang member (with no opportunity for any person wrongly so-identified to challenge it) injunction is a wholly inappropriate (and it turns out, illegal) way to deal with the problem.

Danny said...

Wrong. Nobody said the injunction was illegal. They only said it was served improperly.


I agree it gives some latitude to the police, but to do what? Stop people from protesting? No, to stop kids who they have a reasonable suspicion from hanging around with guns and spray paint. Big wow.


While the police are busting in doors and gunning people down in their homes just for getting high, this (putting pressure on teenage gang members) is what the left worries about. You professors may be intelligent, but as far as being wise, nope. It's a different part of the brain.

Bob Becker said...

Sorry, Danny, but I think you're wrong on this. Ogden argued that the gang had no consistent identifiable leadership who could be served. Hence, Danny, it is not an organization ( like say Exxon) for which a injunction is an appropriate legal tool since to be legal, it MUST be served on the organization's leaders ( who can then be held responsible if the injunction is violated).

Also worth noting that at about the same time, another court (federal) suspended one of the California injunctions because it provided no court opportunity for anyone to challenge their inclusion in the injunction. Such opportunity must, the court ruled, be provided for those to whom the injunction applies if loss of freedom is a possible cobsequence of violating the injunction. That issue wasn't invokved in the Ogden decision, but the Ogden injunction provided no such opportunity either.

AWM said...

Bob, here's all I need to know on the subject. The Trece and any other "gang" don't give a damn about any of my God given and constitutionally enumerated rights. It's because of these dirt bags, when I leave the house tonight on a Friday PM to head to Ogden to shop and eat I feel compelled to have the comfort of quality leather and steel riding high and ready on my hip. I'm OK with Dee trampling a little on their rights, they've been doing it to ours for decades.

blackrulon said...

What is to stop some other government official, under the guise of fighting crime, to include you in an injunction or other court order, based mainly on guilt by association? The injunction severly liminits or completely removes the right of free association, Second amendments rights and the ability to hold public gatherings.

AWM said...

BR, there is ALWAYS that risk isn't there? What's OPD's track record to date on this question? Are there hard numbers out yet? It's a BALANCING act. we do it with everything all the time....the NSA Center, use of Drones will bring up this question, scanning license plates etc. I have no clear answer for you. But I do know the Trece get ZERO sympathy from me on this issue. Now if they were getting persecuted for their religious affiliation I might relook that stance

AWM said...

Clarify: with all laws that we pass it's a balancing act

Bob Becker said...

Exactly.

Bob Becker said...

Feel sorry for you, AWM, being so afraid all the time that you won't go shopping or out to eat in Ogden without being armed. Odd, but I and my family have been eating out and shopping in Ogden, day and night, even downtown, for over a decade without once being armed or robbed or assaulted. Panhandled, yes. But that's it. But if it makes you happy to be a John Wayne Wannabe pretending you're ruding into Didge City when you go to Sears, have at it. Takes all kinds, I guess.

Post a Comment

© 2005 - 2013 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved