This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2017, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

The fatal shooting of a dog named Geist by a Salt Lake City police officer nearly three years ago has led to a challenge before the Utah Supreme Court of two laws designed to protect law enforcement from frivolous lawsuits and ensure collection of defense costs from plaintiffs who lose their cases.

Before suing a law-enforcement officer, plaintiffs must post a bond covering the estimated attorney fees and court costs needed to defend the officer and pay an "undertaking" of at least $300. The money is used to cover attorney fees and court costs of an officer who prevails in the suit; a winning plaintiff's fees and costs are covered by the officer's official bond.

On Monday, lawyers squared off at the Utah Supreme Court over whether the bond and undertaking requirements are constitutional.

Attorney Rocky Anderson, who represents dog owner Sean Kendall, said those provisions violate the due process and equal protection rights of litigants suing police officers and puts an undue burden on them to get their day in court.

In his client's case, there was a nine-month delay in filing a suit because of the two statutes, according to Anderson, who is a former Salt Lake City mayor. He noted the bond requirement applies only to people suing law enforcement officers and asked, "What other class of plaintiffs has to go through this?"

Samantha Slark, an attorney for Salt Lake City, argued that Kendall lacked standing to challenge the laws because he was able to file his suit after a judge found he couldn't afford a bond and required only a $300 undertaking.

"Clearly, we've seen that Mr. Kendall was not denied access to the courts," Slark said.

The justices took the arguments under consideration.

Geist, a 2-year-old Weimaraner, was shot on June 18, 2014, when Salt Lake City police Officer Brett Olsen entered Kendall's fenced backyard in Sugar House during a search for a missing 3-year-old boy. The 100-pound dog reacted by barking and running toward the officer, who shot him.

The boy was later found safe sleeping at home. A review by the city's Police Civilian Review Board said Olsen did not violate any department policies.

Kendall filed a complaint in January 2015 in 3rd District Court seeking a declaration that the bond and undertaking statutes violated his and other plaintiffs' constitutional rights.

In a September 2015 ruling, 3rd District Judge William Barrett upheld the constitutionality of the two laws, but also ruled that Kendall could not afford a bond and would not have to pay it. Kendall appealed the constitutionality ruling to the Utah Supreme Court.

He filed a lawsuit in 3rd District Court in October 2015 against the city and five of its officers, demanding about $2 million for the loss of Geist. The case — which included both state and federal law claims — was moved to U.S. District Court, where Judge Robert Shelby ruled earlier this year that Olsen was justified in the shooting.

Anderson has appealed that ruling to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. The case was sent back to 3rd District Court for litigation on the remaining state law issues, but is on hold pending a decision from the 10th Circuit Court.

Twitter: PamelaManson