Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Town of Colorado City

United States District Court, D. Arizona

April 18, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
TOWN OF COLORADO CITY, ARIZONA, et al., Defendants.

          JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

          H. Russel Holland United States District Judge.

         The constitutional right to free exercise of religion, on the one hand, and the statutory right to housing and constitutional policing, on the other hand, are vitally important to a viable, peaceful community. In Colorado City, Arizona, and the City of Hildale, Utah, those rights have come into conflict over access to residential housing and services. Denial of housing rights and lawful policing to some residents at the behest of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (“FLDS Church”) has cost the cities dearly - millions of dollars - in the past.

         When a disastrous flood hit the cities, the residents came together and successfully addressed their losses. It is now time for the citizens of Colorado City and City of Hildale to come together and accept the fact that communal ownership of residential property in the Defendant Cities is a thing of the past. All residents of the Defendant Cities must be afforded equal access to housing and residential services, to nondiscriminatory law enforcement, and to free exercise of their religious preferences that are not contrary to law. By this judgment and decree, the court hopes to assist the Defendant Cities and their residents in advancing the protection of civil rights to which they are entitled.

         I.

         PROCEEDINGS

         This case began with the filing of a complaint by the United States of America seeking enforcement of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (the Policing Act), 42 U.S.C. § 14141 (plaintiff's first cause of action); the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq. (plaintiff's second cause of action); and Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000b (plaintiff's third cause of action). During the development of the case, plaintiff's third cause of action based upon 42 U.S.C. § 2000b was dismissed.[1] The case went forward as to three named defendants: Town of Colorado City, Arizona; City of Hildale, Utah; and Twin City Water Authority, Inc.[2]

         After extensive discovery and motion practice, the case went to trial on January 19, 2016. Plaintiff's Fair Housing claim was tried to a jury. Plaintiff's policing claim was tried to the same jury on an advisory basis. On March 7, 2016, the jury returned unanimous verdicts in favor of the United States and against Colorado City, City of Hildale, and Twin City Water Authority with respect to plaintiff's Fair Housing Act claim. As to each defendant, the jury determined that the respective defendants had “engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct that violated the federal Fair Housing Act by:”

making housing unavailable or denying housing opportunities to individuals because of religion[;]
discriminating against non-FLDS individuals in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of religion[; and]
coercing, intimidating, threatening, or interfering with an individual in the exercise or enjoyment of the right to equal housing opportunities or the right to equal treatment in the terms, conditions, privileges, and services in connection with housing, or on account of that individual having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of those rights.[3]

         Having determined liability against the defendants, the jury awarded “damages” for emotional distress, humiliation, and embarrassment in the total amount of $2, 215, 000 in favor of six identified victims of the defendants' Fair Housing Act violations. While the jury was deliberating as to the Fair Housing Act claim, plaintiff and defendants entered into an oral settlement by which the defendants agreed to pay plaintiff (and the victims) the total sum of $1, 600, 000 on account of Fair Housing Act violations by the defendants and in satisfaction of all monetary claims of plaintiff against the Defendant Cities. That settlement was reduced to writing[4] and was approved by the court.[5] The settlement left open the matter of injunctive relief for Fair Housing Act violations by the Defendant Cities, a subject taken up in this judgment and decree.

         With respect to plaintiff's policing claim, 42 U.S.C. § 14141, the advisory jury found that the Colorado City Marshal's Office (“CCMO”), which serves both Colorado City and the City of Hildale, engaged in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional policing in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution;[6] engaged in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional policing in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution in three respects: unreasonable seizure of property, unreasonable seizure of a person, and arrest made without probable cause;[7] and engaged in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional policing in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.[8] The advisory jury rejected plaintiff's contention that CCMO officers engaged in unreasonable searches of property, unreasonable investigatory stops, or use of excessive force in making a lawful arrest or other seizure or detention.

         By order of March 25, 2016, [9] the court put in place a schedule for further proceedings with respect to injunctive relief sought by plaintiff based upon the Fair Housing Act violations determined by the jury and the jury's advisory findings with respect to policing. That schedule culminated in an evidentiary hearing commenced on October 24, 2016, and concluded on October 27, 2016. At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, provision was made for the filing of written closing arguments. Arguments were completed by January 24, 2017, and the matter of injunctive relief is now under advisement.

         II.

         FINDINGS OF FACT - BACKGROUND

         (1) The Town of Colorado City is a municipal entity organized under the laws of the State of Arizona. Colorado City was incorporated in 1985. The City of Hildale was organized under the laws of the State of Utah. The Defendant Cities share a common boundary, which is also the boundary between the states of Arizona and Utah. The Defendant Cities have separate city councils, mayors, and managers.

         (2) Defendant Twin City Water Authority was an entity operated by Colorado City for purposes of supplying potable water to residents of the Defendant Cities.

         (3) The Defendant Cities jointly fund the Colorado City Marshal's Office which provides law enforcement for both Defendant Cities. The CCMO currently employs a chief marshal, a sergeant, and five deputy officers. The chief marshal of Colorado City is also the chief of police for Hildale. CCMO officers are employees of the Town of Colorado City. At the time of trial, the CCMO consisted of Chief Jerry Darger (brother of Colorado City town manager, David Darger), Sergeant Sam Johnson, and Deputies Chris Cooke, Hyrum Roundy, Jacob Barlow, Jr., Daniel Musser, Daniel Roy “DR” Barlow, and Shem Jessop. Colorado City operates a dispatch center that provides emergency services (police, fire, medical) for both Colorado City and the City of Hildale.

         (4) The Colorado City town council has the authority to hire new police officers. The chief marshal has the authority to discipline or terminate police officers subject to applicable grievance procedures. CCMO officers are certified in both Utah and Arizona. The Arizona POST (Peace Officers Standards and Training) is a state agency that certifies police officers to work in Arizona. Utah POST is a state agency that certifies police officers who work in Utah. The CCMO officers are dually certified by the Arizona and Utah POSTs.

         (5) Colorado City and the City of Hildale are sometimes collectively referred to as “Short Creek.” The Short Creek community was established as a fundamentalist Mormon settlement in the late 1920s. The community is predominantly composed of fundamentalist Mormons, many of whom belong to the FLDS Church.

         (6) The FLDS Church is led by a prophet. From 1986 until 2002, Rulon Jeffs was the prophet of the FLDS Church. Following his death in 2002, his son, Warren Jeffs, succeeded him as prophet. Warren Jeffs is in federal prison, from which he has continued to communicate with FLDS Church members in Short Creek. The FLDS Church in Short Creek also has a bishop. From1936 until 2003, Fred Jessop served as bishop of the community. William E. Jessop succeeded Fred Jessop, serving until 2007. Lyle Jeffs succeeded William E. Jessop as bishop, and appears to have served as bishop through the trial of this case. Lyle Jeffs is under indictment for food stamp fraud in Utah and has absconded from pretrial release.

         (7) The early settlers of Short Creek decided for religious reasons to hold real property in common and, to accomplish this, created a religious land trust: the United Effort Plan Trust (“UEP Trust”). The UEP Trust was organized under the laws of the State of Utah. The UEP Trust was formed to hold, manage, and distribute real property and other religious consecrations. The UEP Trust made real property and other consecrated property available to members of the FLDS Church on a need basis. It was and is a principal tenet of the FLDS Church that all property of members be consecrated to the church.

         (8) In 2005, at the request of the State of Utah, the Utah probate court took control of the UEP Trust away from the FLDS Church and appointed Bruce Wisan, an accountant from Salt Lake City, as the trustee or special fiduciary to oversee the UEP Trust property. The UEP Trust is required to operate as a religiously neutral entity. Mr. Wisan served as the special fiduciary for the UEP Trust until 2015, at which time he began to transition management and control to a board of trustees.

         (9) The FLDS Church leadership and members have vigorously opposed Utah's assumption of control of the UEP Trust. Members were instructed not to respond and not to cooperate with anyone with respect to the neutral operation of the UEP Trust. Members were directed not to associate with Bruce Wisan. Members were directed to stop developing the community and to contribute their assets to a different project of the FLDS Church in Texas.

         (10) FLDS Church opposition to the UEP Trust was formalized in November of 2008 in an effort to secure the removal of Bruce Wisan as the UEP Trust administrator. FLDS Church members signed a “Declaration of Beneficiaries” which stated in part:

1. I am aware of the original intent of the settlors of the United Effort Plan Trust (the “UEP”) and have consecrated my time, talents, materials, monies, and property to the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the “Church”). I am a voluntary member of the Church which is an association formed by our mutual consent to promote our common objective to ensure that the UEP is administered in compliance with constitutional requirements and in a manner that meets our “just wants and needs.”
2. As a member of the Church I am a beneficiary of the UEP and have seen the effects of the administration of the UEP by the States of Utah and Arizona which have taken the management of the UEP away from the Church ... and which prevents the UEP from meeting my “just wants and needs” ....
5. I am opposed to the sale of any sacred or consecrated UEP Property including, Sacred Sites, Harker Farm, and Berry Knoll Farm without the approval of the Church.[10]

         (11) Beginning in 2008, under the direction of the Utah probate judge and Mr. Wisan, the UEP Trust began requiring occupants of Trust property to execute occupancy agreements in order to live in a home on Trust property. Occupancy agreement holders were to pay $100 a month, plus a share of real estate taxes assessed by the county, to live on a Trust property. At various times, FLDS Church members refused to sign occupancy agreements and/or refused to pay the $100-a-month occupancy fee. At other times, members of the FLDS Church signed occupancy agreements as a means of maintaining control of property. The FLDS Church has caused its members to move from one UEP Trust property to another UEP Trust property without involving the Trust or securing permission from the Trust as owner of the property.

         (12) The UEP Trust's use of occupancy agreements and Mr. Wisan's efforts to enforce those occupancy agreements have led to much civil disobedience and unrest. There has been vandalism of property occupied by non-FLDS Church members. CCMO officers have been heavily involved in disagreements between FLDS Church members who have occupied Colorado City properties as to which others have occupancy agreements. Mr. Wisan's efforts to employ self-help in gaining control of UEP Trust property have sometimes gone awry because of spurious claims of FLDS Members and due to discriminatory policing by CCMO officers. Rather than endeavoring to keep the peace, officers have sometimes inappropriately taken sides in occupancy disputes, and have engaged in unreasonable arrests of non-FLDS Church members. In short, control of Colorado City property is at the heart of the problems which have arisen with respect to housing and policing in Colorado City.

         (13) The ownership of land in Colorado City is a patchwork of properties, the majority of which is owned by the UEP Trust. There has not been a formal subdivision of Colorado City properties; however a de facto subdivision has developed over time. With the assistance of professional engineers employed by the UEP Trust and Colorado City, a proposed subdivision plat was developed. Had that process been completed, the Trust would be in a position to convey legal title to residential properties in place of the current occupancy permits. Just prior to a final meeting that was intended to finalize the proposed subdivision plat, representatives of the Trust and Colorado City (other than the engineers) became involved. As part of a pattern or practice of conduct that violated the Fair Housing Act by making housing unavailable or denying housing opportunities to individuals because of religion, Colorado City withdrew its support for developing a recordable subdivision plat for Colorado City properties.

         (14) As prophet of the FLDS Church of Short Creek, Warren Jeffs assumed sweeping powers over the persons and properties of FLDS Church members. His directions as regards interaction of spouses, communal work projects, and consecration of property were enforced by threat of excommunication that would involve separation of spouses and their families, loss of employment, and banishment from the Short Creek community.

         (15) In 2004, the FLDS Church organized a formal security force for purposes of providing protection to FLDS Church leaders and to keep the leadership informed as to events taking place in the community. A primary purpose of the FLDS Church security force was to afford leaders an opportunity and time to escape intervention from outside law enforcement. By 2007, the FLDS Church security had expanded to several hundred members, some of whom were CCMO officers, and organized into teams assigned to shifts and captains. City-owned cameras located on city property were connected to a control room at the FLDS Church “Meeting House.” Church officials, with direct assistance from CCMO officers, were able to monitor attendance at meetings and monitor comings and goings within the community. Both CCMO officers and Church officials surveilled non-FLDS Church residents, UEP Trust representatives, and county law enforcement.

         (16) Control of FLDS Church membership was further expanded beginning in 2010 through the creation of an elite sub-group of the FLDS Church known as the “United Order.” Members entered into covenants precluding disclosure of their membership in the United Order or discussion of the doctrines of the United Order with anyone, including outside law enforcement officers. Members of the United Order were required to consecrate everything they owned (real estate and personal property) to the FLDS Church, where the property was inventoried and placed in the “Storehouse.” Members were not supposed to obtain food or any other necessities other than from the Storehouse. A member who fell out of favor with the FLDS Church leadership could be excluded from the United Order, which appears to have been the functional equivalent of excommunication from the FLDS Church. Loss of United Order membership could lead to loss of family and loss of access to the Storehouse.

         III.

         FAIR HOUSING ACT

         A. Law. The Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a), provides in pertinent part that:

Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights granted by this subchapter, or that any group of persons has been denied any of the rights granted by this subchapter and such denial raises an issue of general public importance, the Attorney General may commence a civil action in any appropriate United States district court.

         Section 3614(d) of the Fair Housing Act further provides:

(1) In a civil action under subsection (a) or (b) of this section, the court -
(A) may award such preventive relief, including a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order against the person responsible for a violation of this subchapter as is necessary to assure the full enjoyment of the rights granted by this subchapter[.]

         Based upon the court's instructions, [11] the jury determined that the Town of Colorado City and City of Hildale and Twin City Water Authority violated the Fair Housing Act in the particulars set out above.[12] The jury awarded and the court approved damages in favor of identified victims. In accordance with Section 3614(d)(1)(A) of the Fair Housing Act, it is for the court to decide what (if any) additional remedies should be imposed upon the defendants.

         B. Discussion.

         Plaintiff argues that the court should permanently enjoin the Defendant Cities from violating the Fair Housing Act, especially as regards non-FLDS individuals, in the provision of housing, utilities, and other municipal services. Plaintiff specifically urges the court to order: (1) that the Defendant Cities adopt new policies, procedures, and ordinances as regards municipal services, land use, and training, (2) that Colorado City approve the UEP Trust subdivision proposal, (3) that the Defendant Cities adopt new policies and procedures for handling building permits, and (4) that the Defendant Cities abandon discriminatory water policies and establish a new, nondiscriminatory, water policy. Plaintiff urges the court to appoint a monitor to oversee Fair Housing Act related injunctive relief.[13]

         The Defendant Cities argue that additional injunctive relief as regards the Fair Housing Act, beyond that imposed by Judge Teilborg in Cooke v. Town of Colorado City, is unnecessary.[14] The Defendant Cities contend that to do otherwise would cause confusion. The Defendant Cities argue for various reasons that the court should not involve itself in the subdividing of Colorado City property. The Defendant Cities argue that no injunctive relief is necessary as regards building permits. The Defendant Cities argue that they have already revised their domestic water supply regulations to ensure fair treatment of customers, and that there is no legitimate dispute as regards impact fees for new water connections. The Defendant Cities argue that a monitor is unnecessary.[15]

         Cooke involved a single victim and Colorado City's failure to supply utilities in violation of the Fair Housing Act. This case involves multiple victims and multiple Fair Housing Act violations with respect to housing and services in the Defendant Cities. The court is persuaded that the jury's findings demand injunctive relief. Imposition of only the general injunctive relief contained in Cooke will not suffice. A more specific injunction will not cause confusion.

         Beyond a general prohibition of Fair Housing Act violations, resolution of the disagreement between Colorado City and the UEP Trust as regards the subdivision of Colorado City property is the most urgent problem. That disagreement substantially and adversely affects the occupancy and availability of residential properties (housing) for all residents of Colorado City.

         Colorado City has adopted a subdivision ordinance, the legality of which is in litigation in Maricopa County Superior Court. The validity of the Colorado City subdivision ordinance is not a relevant issue in this Fair Housing Act case, nor is there any need for the court to resolve that matter for purposes of this case. Irrespective of whether the Colorado City subdivision ordinance is or is not valid, legally enforceable property descriptions are a necessary predicate to stabilizing residential property occupancy and availability in Colorado City, free of discrimination based on religious differences.

         Without a resolution regarding the subdividing of Colorado City property, the use of UEP Trust occupancy agreements will continue. The FLDS Church's opposition to the UEP Trust is enabled by uncertainty as to the enforceability of occupancy agreements in Colorado City. Subdivision of Colorado City residential property will further validate the UEP Trust's ownership of property and diminish the FLDS Church's ability to disrupt or impede transfer of title to residential properties to residents of Colorado City.

         The UEP Trust's engineer (Renstrom) believes that a subdivision plat is ready for recording. The court has not seen and doubts that there is in existence a Colorado City subdivision plat which Colorado City could be ordered to approve for recording. It will therefore be necessary for the UEP Trust and Colorado City to restart the process of finalizing a subdivision plat for Colorado City. Inasmuch as the UEP Trust is not a party to this case, the court is not in a position to order that it participate in the process of completing a subdivision plat. Nevertheless, the court believes that self-interest will dictate that the UEP Trust cooperate with plaintiff and Colorado City in producing a recordable subdivision plat.

         The court rejects the Defendant Cities' contention that no injunctive relief is necessary as regards building permits. A requirement that the legal owner of property join in a building permit application will prevent the issuance of permits for the improvement of UEP Trust property by those who have no right to do so for lack of an occupancy permit. At present, building officials can turn a blind eye on applications to improve property by persons having no right to do so. A requirement that the legal owner sign a building permit application will impose no significant burden on either permit applicants or Colorado City.

         As regards Colorado City water regulations, the initiation, termination, and/or transfer of domestic water service has been a source of Fair Housing Act violations. Plaintiff recognizes that defendant Colorado City has abandoned a former discriminatory water policy. Plaintiff argues, however, that the discriminatory ordinances remain on the books. They must be repealed. Under the court's general injunction against Fair Housing Act violations, the Defendant Cities must of course apply their existing water connection transfer policies in a nondiscriminatory fashion. Existing policies need to be reviewed and amended to assure the Defendant Cities' future compliance with the Fair Housing Act obligations.

         As a consequence of the decision in Cooke, Colorado City abandoned a discriminatory water policy and adopted an impact fee system for new water connections. Applied in a nondiscriminatory fashion, impact fees are an appropriate basis for a municipality making new water connections available However, as a consequence of evidence produced by plaintiff during the remedies hearing, it became apparent to the court that there is reason to believe that the current impact fee of $12, 000 may be unnecessarily high.[16] In light of the jury's finding that Colorado City engaged in a pattern or practice of restricting equal treatment and access to services in connection with housing, a review of Colorado City's entire water policy, including the current impact fee, is in order.

         In light of the long history of antagonism between the FLDS Church and non-members, and in particular as a consequence of the entanglement of the FLDS Church and the Defendant Cities, and in light of the history of Fair Housing Act violations, a general review of the Defendant Cities' policies, procedures, and ordinances as regards non-discrimination in municipal services, land use, and training of city employees is in order. Engagement of an independent monitor by the Defendant Cities for purposes of assessing compliance with the court's injunction and the requirements of the Fair Housing Act is deemed both appropriate and necessary.

         IV.

         POLICING ACT

         A. Law. The “pattern or practice” part of the Policing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 14141(a), provides:

It shall be unlawful for any governmental authority, or any agent thereof, or any person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers ... that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

         Section 14141(b) authorizes civil actions by the Attorney General for violation of subsection (a), and provides that “the United States, may in a civil action obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.”

         Based upon detailed instructions, [17] the trial jury rendered three advisory verdicts against the Defendant Cities. The jury was satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that the marshal's office of Colorado City and City of Hildale had engaged in a pattern or practice of violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.[18] The jury was satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that the marshal's office of Colorado City and City of Hildale had engaged in a pattern or practice of violating the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution because of the unreasonable seizure of property, unreasonable seizure of a person, and arrest without probable cause.[19] As regards the Fourth Amendment, the jury advised that the marshal's office had not engaged in unreasonable searches of property, had not made unreasonable investigatory stops or used excessive force in making a lawful arrest or other seizure or detention.[20]

         The court and plaintiff disagreed on one aspect of the Policing Act instructions employed by the court. The court specifically instructed the jury that:

A pattern or practice may not be established by combining a violation of one constitutional amendment with violations of another constitutional amendment.[21]

         Even if erroneous, the court's instruction does plaintiff no harm. The jury found that a pattern or practice of unlawful policing had been established as regards all three of plaintiff's constitutional claims. A finding by the advisory jury and/or court of a pattern or practice of violating any one of the three constitutional amendments in question would entitle plaintiff to relief; and knowing the jury's thinking about the separate constitutional claims has informed the court as to the jury's thinking as to each amendment, which in turn will help inform the court as regards the nature and extent of remedies to be imposed.

         B. Findings of Fact.

         Except as expressly stated below, the court adopts the jury's advisory verdicts with respect to violations of 42 U.S.C. § 14141.[22] As expressly stated below, the court adopts the plaintiff's detailed findings of fact. The court makes the following summary findings with respect to the Defendant Cities' violation of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution, violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

         Violation of the Establishment Clause

         (1) The CCMO and other city officials subscribed to the beliefs of and were subject to pressure from the FLDS Church.[23]

         (2) The CCMO officers and city officials personally opposed the non-FLDS administration of the UEP Trust.[24]

         (3) The FLDS Church selected and controlled the CCMO and city officials.[25]

         (4) City officials sought and received direction regarding their official duties from the FLDS Church.[26]

         (5) The CCMO is entangled with FLDS security.[27]

         (a) The CCMO and FLDS Church security worked together to guard FLDS leadership and monitor outside law enforcement in the cities.[28]

         (b) The CCMO improperly provided training and equipment to FLDS security.[29]

         (c) The CCMO illegally shared law enforcement information with FLDS Church security.[30]

         (d) The CCMO aided FLDS Church security's harassment of non-FLDS members.[31]

         (6) CCMO officers and other city officials communicated with and financially supported FLDS Church's Prophet Warren Jeffs while he was a federal fugitive.[32]

         (7) The Defendant Cities engaged in the religiously biased hiring of three CCMO officers in 2014.[33]

         (8) Based upon the foregoing findings, the Defendant Cities, through the CCMO, engaged in a pattern or practice of discriminatory policing in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. That pattern or practice fostered excessive government entanglement with religion - a fusion of government and religion - that had the purpose or effect of endorsing, favoring, or promoting the FLDS Church at the expense of non-FLDS residents of the Defendant Cities.

         Violation of Equal Protection Clause

         (9) The foregoing findings as regards the Establishment Clause are relevant with respect to equal protection, for those findings reflect that FLDS Church leadership insisted upon city officials and CCMO officers advancing church and church members' interests in preference to the needs and interests of non-FLDS Church residents of the Defendant Cities.

         (10) CCMO officers turned a blind eye to criminal activity involving FLDS Church leaders or members. The officers supported Warren Jeffs when he was a fugitive, [34] ignored underage marriages, [35] ignored unauthorized distribution of prescription drugs, [36] ignored food stamp fraud, [37] and failed to cite or arrest the son of a church bishop.[38]

         (11) CCMO officers stood by while FLDS Church security effected a burglary at R&W Excavation, which had the purpose of stealing evidence of criminal activity by FLDS Church leader Warren Jeffs that had been gathered by a former FLDS Church member and owner of the R&W business.[39] There were continuing efforts by CCMO officers to prevent the owner of R&W from recovering the materials that he had gathered. CCMO officers refused to provide police protection to R&W's owner and allowed FLDS Church security to steal records a second time.

         (12) CCMO policing - especially as to land access and use - was heavily slanted in favor of the FLDS Church and its members and against non-FLDS residents of the Defendant Cities. CCMO officers failed to provide effective police services to non-FLDS Church members and the UEP Trust and its representatives. In particular, officers arrested and harassed non-FLDS individuals for alleged trespassing on property, for which they had UEP Trust issued occupancy agreements, while accepting FLDS members' spurious occupancy claims, and otherwise assisting FLDS Church members in resisting the transfer of possession of UEP Trust property to non-FLDS members. Overall, there was a lack of training as regards investigation and handling of landlord/tenant/trespass incidents, and CCMO reporting and record-keeping procedures were sloppy. CCMO handling of civil disobedience by FLDS members, especially as regards the occupancy of property, was inept and violative of non-FLDS residents' equal protection rights. Reports were sometimes not timely completed. Other reports were modified without preservation of the originals.[40]

         (13) CCMO officers refused to provide police services to UEP Trust's agent Wyler, who was viewed as an apostate working for the non-FLDS Trust.[41]

         (14) CCMO officers harassed and arrested or threatened to arrest Bishop William E. Jessop, failed to provide services and arrested Richard Holm, and arrested Jerold N. Williams because of their status as excommunicated FLDS members.[42]

         (15) CCMO officers ordered Christopher Jessop off property he occupied under a UEP Trust occupancy agreement on the theory that it was “church property.”[43]

         (16) CCMO officers discriminated against non-FLDS member Guy Timpson by unreasonably arresting him in 2014 for trespass on a UEP property for which he had obtained an occupancy agreement while Timpson was in the process of posting an eviction notice to remove the occupant of the property who was a brother of FLDS leaders.[44]

         (17) CCMO officers blocked non-FLDS member Patrick Pipkin from entering his home in 2005, even when he obtained a UEP occupancy agreement, because Church leaders had ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.