Phillips v. South Jordan City
307 P.3d 659
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- On June 2, 2011, Officer Rion Phillips responded to an emergency call and drove at very high speeds (verified by in-vehicle video), reaching 121 mph and traveling through six intersections at 101–119 mph. He also turned off lights/sirens and passed vehicles, including a right-side pass while still traveling at high speed.
- South Jordan City initiated an internal affairs investigation; Lieutenant Starks investigated and recommended termination. Chief Shepherd held a predisciplinary hearing and terminated Phillips for violating South Jordan Police General Orders (primarily 41.2.1) and for a pattern of poor judgment.
- Phillips appealed to the South Jordan City Appeal Board, which held an eight-hour hearing, reviewed vehicle video and training records, found violations of General Order 41.2.1 and EVO training, and affirmed termination based on the conduct and Phillips’s disciplinary history.
- Phillips sought judicial review in the Utah Court of Appeals, arguing (1) the policy was too vague (no specific speed limits) and (2) termination was disproportionate and inconsistent with discipline of other officers.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed for abuse of discretion and whether factual findings were clearly erroneous, confined to the Board’s record, and defers to the Chief’s disciplinary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Phillips violated Gen. Order 41.2.1 during June 2 response | Gen. Order 41.2.1 lacks a specific or maximum speed, so his high speed was within discretion | Policy requires "due regard" and limits speed by road/weather/ability to stop; evidence shows extreme speeds and unsafe conduct | Court: No abuse of discretion; evidence supports violation of 41.2.1 |
| Whether Phillips violated EVO training | EVO training did not set concrete speed limits, so City cannot prove he violated training | Phillips received EVO training (regularly, remedial, tested on due regard/intersection rules) | Court: No abuse of discretion; record shows he was trained and violated that training |
| Whether termination was proportionate discipline | Termination disproportionate; Board overstated disciplinary history and counted nondisciplinary incidents | Board considered multiple prior discipline incidents and pattern of poor judgment supporting termination | Court: No abuse of discretion; Phillips failed to rebut or meaningfully challenge Board’s reliance on his discipline record |
| Whether discipline was applied consistently with other officers | Other officers received lesser sanctions for similar conduct | Defendant notes differences in factual circumstances, service histories, and at least one officer had been terminated for high-speed chase | Court: No abuse of discretion; Phillips did not present sufficient comparable evidence to show inconsistent application |
Key Cases Cited
- Harmon v. Ogden City Civil Serv. Comm’n, 171 P.3d 474 (Utah Ct. App. 2007) (deference owed to chief’s disciplinary judgments)
- Kelly v. Salt Lake City Civil Serv. Comm’n, 8 P.3d 1048 (Utah Ct. App. 2000) (clearly erroneous standard for overturning factual findings)
- Nelson v. Orem City, Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 278 P.3d 1089 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion review for disciplinary proportionality and consistency)
- State v. Merrill, 269 P.3d 196 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (issues inadequately briefed where party fails to develop argument)
- Guenon v. Midvale City, 230 P.3d 1032 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (review limited to the appeal board record)