State v. Bridgewaters
466 P.3d 204
Utah2020Background
- Feb 5, 2016: Court issued an ex parte protective order against Jeremy Bridgewaters; he was personally served that day and a hearing was set for Feb 23.
- Feb 23, 2016: Court held the hearing (Bridgewaters absent) and issued a protective order; the county sheriff did not serve that protective order.
- May 3, 2016: Petitioner’s counsel filed a certificate of service stating the protective order had been mailed to Bridgewaters’ last known address (which was the petitioner’s residence and barred to him).
- June 27–28, 2017: Alleged violations occurred (presence at petitioner’s apartment complex and later text messages); State charged Bridgewaters with violating both the ex parte and the protective order.
- At preliminary hearing the magistrate bound Bridgewaters over; he moved to quash claiming (1) the protective order was not properly served and (2) the ex parte order had expired after 180 days. The district court denied the motion; the court of appeals certified the issues to the Utah Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a protective order must be served under Utah R. Civ. P. 4 (service of process) or may be served under R. Civ. P. 5 | State: Rule 5 suffices because the ex parte order had already put the respondent on notice and the action had commenced | Bridgewaters: "Properly served" in the criminal statute requires service of process under Rule 4; mailing under Rule 5 is insufficient | Held: Protective orders issued after a hearing must be served as "service of process" under Rule 4; mailing under Rule 5 by counsel did not constitute proper service, so the protective order was not properly served |
| Whether an ex parte protective order may remain in effect beyond 180 days where a protective order is issued after a hearing but not properly served | State: Subsection 107(1)(d) allows the ex parte order to remain in effect until service of the protective order is completed; the 180–day limit does not apply in that circumstance | Bridgewaters: Subsection 107(1)(c) imposes a hard 180–day cap on any ex parte order’s effective life | Held: Subsection 107(1)(c)’s 180–day limit restricts court extensions pre-hearing; when a court issues a protective order at the hearing, subsection 107(1)(d) controls and the ex parte order remains in effect until the protective order is properly served. Thus the ex parte order remained effective and supported the bindover for counts based on it |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Virgin, 137 P.3d 787 (Utah 2006) (probable-cause standard at preliminary hearing)
- State v. Clark, 20 P.3d 300 (Utah 2001) (review of bindover viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)
- Carlson v. Bos, 740 P.2d 1269 (Utah 1987) (service of process and due process notice principles)
- Weber County v. Ogden Trece, 321 P.3d 1067 (Utah 2013) (discussion of service of process terminology)
- Brown v. Cox, 387 P.3d 1040 (Utah 2017) (legislative amendment of procedural rules and rule-making authority)
- Keystone Ins. Agency, LLC v. Inside Ins., LLC, 445 P.3d 434 (Utah 2019) (standard of review for rule interpretation)
- Marion Energy, Inc. v. KFJ Ranch P’ship, 267 P.3d 863 (Utah 2011) (reviewing statutory interpretation for correctness)