Quantcast
Get breaking news alerts via email

Click here to manage your alerts
(Tribune file photo) Utah Gov. Gary Herbert
Utah legislators to consider repealing fed law enforcement bill
Special session » Herbert adds a possible repeal to the agenda that also includes an old land dispute and adjustments to the authority of Swallow committee.
First Published Jul 15 2013 04:02 pm • Last Updated Dec 07 2013 11:35 pm

Legislators will consider repealing a law passed in the recent legislative session that took a poke at federal land managers’ law enforcement authority but has resulted in a lawsuit by the U.S. Justice Department against the state.

Gov. Gary Herbert added the proposed repeal to the issues to be addressed when the Legislature meets in a special session Wednesday, along with a settlement agreement in a 16-year-old land sale dispute and another minor tweak to the authority of a special House committee investigating Utah Attorney General John Swallow.

Join the Discussion
Post a Comment

Herbert issued the initial special session call Friday, with an agenda focused on ensuring that a House investigative committee created to look into alleged malfeasance by Swallow has subpoena authority and the ability to have witnesses testify under oath.

The Legislature also plans to create exemptions to the Utah open-meetings and records laws, allowing the panel to conduct portions of the investigation behind closed doors if a majority of the committee deems it necessary to prevent harm to ongoing criminal investigations.

Herbert added one final change for the House committee: a provision that grants authority to practice law in Utah to any attorney from outside the state hired to work on the Swallow probe.

Repeal of the bill limiting federal law enforcement arose late and was added to the agenda at the request of Rep. Mike Noel, R-Kanab, who sponsored HB155 and now wants it revoked, said Ally Isom, Herbert’s deputy chief of staff.

"He apparently, given the controversy, wants to wipe the slate clean and start again working with the stakeholders," Isom said. She said Herbert supports the discussion.

Noel would not comment on his plans for the bill.

"Basically, on advice of counsel, I’m not going to comment," he said, "because we have pending litigation on that bill right now."

HB155 would have made it illegal for Bureau of Land Management rangers and Forest Service protection officers and other Forest Service employees to enforce state laws.


story continues below
story continues below

Those employees, if not certified by the state, could be charged with a class B misdemeanor for impersonating a police officer, punishable by a $1,000 fine and six months in jail.

However, before the law took effect, the Justice Department sued the state, and a judge blocked its enactment, arguing that Congress gave the BLM and Forest Service the authority to police federal lands and the state cannot take that away.

On June 28, U.S. District Judge David Nuffer extended the initial restraining order, saying the bill’s enactment would do "irreparable harm to the constitutional order."

At the time, Mark Ward, representing the Utah Sheriffs’ Association, argued HB155 sought to curtail abuses where federal officers try to enforce state laws. Noel has cited ticketing individuals for not have a fishing license as an example of the types of abuses he sought to stop.

Lawmakers also are expected to pass legislation to settle a lawsuit stemming from a botched 1997 land sale. The State Armory Board bought land in Tooele County from Deep Creek Ranch in exchange for credits for the purchase of $850,000 in state and federal property.

But the federal General Services Administration did not agree to giving the company credit for federal property. The Armory Board argued that voided the contract, but Deep Creek sued, seeking damages from the state and, in 2008, the Utah Supreme Court remanded the case to a trial judge, who ruled in Deep Creek’s favor.

Lawmakers are expected to agree to pay Deep Creek about $3 million to resolve the litigation — an amount that reflects some attorney fees, interest and a multiplier that includes any profit Deep Creek could have received for selling the surplus property.

"Technically, we’re saying we dispute all the claims but we’re willing to pay you [this] amount of dollars to release any claims," said Assistant Attorney General Thom Roberts.

gehrke@sltrib.com



Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Top Reader Comments Read All Comments Post a Comment
Click here to read all comments   Click here to post a comment


About Reader Comments


Reader comments on sltrib.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Salt Lake Tribune. We will delete comments containing obscenities, personal attacks and inappropriate or offensive remarks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. If you see an objectionable comment, please alert us by clicking the arrow on the upper right side of the comment and selecting "Flag comment as inappropriate". If you've recently registered with Disqus or aren't seeing your comments immediately, you may need to verify your email address. To do so, visit disqus.com/account.
See more about comments here.
Staying Connected
Videos
Jobs
Contests and Promotions
  • Search Obituaries
  • Place an Obituary

  • Search Cars
  • Search Homes
  • Search Jobs
  • Search Marketplace
  • Search Legal Notices

  • Other Services
  • Advertise With Us
  • Subscribe to the Newspaper
  • Login to the Electronic Edition
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Contact a newsroom staff member
  • Access the Trib Archives
  • Privacy Policy
  • Missing your paper? Need to place your paper on vacation hold? For this and any other subscription related needs, click here or call 801.204.6100.