Get breaking news alerts via email

Click here to manage your alerts


Rolly: LGBT protesters will get day in court after legislators flee

By paul rolly

| The Salt Lake Tribune

First Published Mar 11 2014 02:28 pm • Last Updated Mar 11 2014 09:02 pm

Remember a month ago when 13 citizens were arrested after blocking a legislative hearing room to protest the Legislature’s inaction on a bill to protect gays and lesbians from housing and job discrimination?

Here is the rest of the story.


At a glance

Join the Discussion
Post a Comment

Before they were arrested, a legislative attorney cited to them a number of laws pertaining to their peaceful demonstration and suggested they could be charged with a felony.

Sen. Stuart Reid, R-Ogden, who recently suggested people of religious convictions and the LGBT community cannot coexist, walked by and sniffed at them as Cardinal Wolsey might have done to the chattel congregating outside the castle.

The Utah Highway Patrol officers who arrested them were professional and courteous and did their job in the most respectful way possible, said Donna Weinholtz, a community activist who was one of those arrested.

Then they were taken to the Salt Lake County Jail. The behavior there, as described by Weinholtz, is consistent with what I’ve heard about the jailers in that facility before.


Those are some of the phrases Weinholtz remembers hearing from the jailers as the protesters were strip searched and held for six hours.

Weinholtz noticed similar barbaric antics shown to others who were being processed in the jail, many of whom showed no signs of violent or aggressive behavior and were in various stages of intoxication or appeared to have mental-health issues.

That was on Feb. 10. When the protesters were finally released on their own recognizance, they were ordered by jail personnel to appear in Salt Lake City Justice Court the morning of Feb. 24. If they did not show up for the arraignment, they were told, a warrant would be issued for their arrest.

story continues below
story continues below

But when they appeared in court — two weeks after their arrests — they learned that no charges had been filed from the Salt Lake City Prosecutor’s Office. One of the protesters had canceled an appointment for a medical procedure to make the court date. Another came home early from a vacation. They all cooled their heels for more than an hour before Justice Court Judge John Baxter came into court and said that because there was no paperwork from the prosecutor, there was nothing he could do. They would be notified later about an arraignment date.

With the Legislature set to adjourn this week, it’s convenient that no charges have emerged from the original arrest warrants on disturbing the peace, a class C misdemeanor and interrupting the Legislature, a class B misdemeanor.

An arraignment hearing would mean more publicity about why they conducted a sit-in at the Capitol in the first place: because the Legislature refused to hold a hearing on Sen. Steve Urquhart’s SB100 and legislative leaders refused to meet with them.

It also could trigger more protests at the Capitol with lawmakers in session.

"These were nonviolent protesters wanting to meet with their legislators. This is what the First Amendment is all about," said Ron Yengich, one of Utah’s most prominent defense attorneys and one of four lawyers who have decided to take on the cases of the "Capitol 13" pro bono.

The other attorneys are Danielle Hawkes, Chris Wharton and Jesse Nix, who all told me they are doing it because they believe in the cause and standing up for the First Amendment.

"These [protesters] should be treated with equality and respect by the courts and by the Legislature," Yengich said. "The Legislature doesn’t want to hear what these people have to say and made a point of not talking to them.

"But if enough money is involved [the Legislature] would let them talk until they were blue in the face."

Access, added Yengich, is driven by money.

Or, perhaps if they had been carrying their concealed weapons and standing up for their Second Amendment rights instead of their First Amendment rights, they would have been treated with more deference.


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
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
  • Access your e-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.