Filed Date: Dec. 13, 2012
Closed Date: April 11, 2016
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a racial profiling and illegal seizure case about a gang task force of about 16 police officers who raided West High School in the Salt Lake City School District on December 16, 2010 to round up students for detention, interrogation, and inclusion in a gang database. The police officers detained Latinx, Black, and Pacific Islander students regardless of whether they had actual gang membership, and they targeted no white students.
On December 13, 2012, the plaintiff, represented by the ACLU and on behalf of his minor son who had been targeted by the gang task force, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. The initial complaint named as defendants the Salt Lake City Police Department (SLCPD), the West Valley Police Department (WVPD), the Unified Police Department of Greater Salk Lake (UPDGSL), the West Jordan Police Department (WJPD), the Chiefs of Police of each department, the as-yet unidentified officers who took part in the gang task force, the Salt Lake City School District (SLCSD), SLCSD board members, and the principal of West High School. The complaint alleged, under both the U.S. Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983) and the Utah Constitution, unreasonable search and seizure, discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin, due process violation due to overly vague laws, and substantive and procedural due process violation under. The complaint also alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress and assault under the Utah Criminal Code and Conspiracy to Deprive Plaintiffs of Constitutional Rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985.
The plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages, as well as an injunction which would (1) require defendants to expunge from their records any information unlawfully obtained by the gang task force, (2) prohibit Salt Lake City School District from enforcing any gang-related policies capable of being applied in arbitrary or discriminatory manner, and (3) prohibit the task force defendants from detaining or searching students in the Salt Lake City School District without probable cause.
Changing Judges throughout the Case
This case was originally assigned to Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner. However, after plaintiffs indicated their intention to move for class certification, Magistrate Judge Warner ordered that the case be reassigned to a district judge. On February 27, 2023, the case was reassigned to Judge Ted Stewart, and on April 17, 2013, Judge Stewart assigned Magistrate Judge Brook C. Wells to hear and determine all nondispositive pretrial matters.
Amended Complaint
After notifying the court of his intention to move for class certification, the Plaintiff filed an amended proposed class complaint on June 17, 2013. The amended complaint removed the UPDGSL and its Chief of Police as defendants and named three additional individual defendants, all of whom were members of the gang task force. The amended complaint also added two additional parents as named plaintiffs bringing claims on behalf of their children and a class of all similarly situated individuals.
Class Certification and Discovery Dispute
Plaintiffs first moved for class certification on July 17, 2013. Plaintiffs sought to certify a class of “All Hispanic, African American, and Pacific Islander public school students who were enrolled in December 2010 and are enrolled in the public schools in the Salt Lake City School District, as well as all future Hispanic, African American, and Pacific Islander students who will enroll in Salt Lake City School District public schools.” In alternative, plaintiff asked the court to certify two subclasses: (1) “All Hispanic, African American, and Pacific Islander Salt Lake City School District Students who have been documented in the Salt Lake City Police Department’s database as gang members or gang associates in the 5 years prior to the filing of the complaint and all Hispanic, African American, and Pacific Islander Salt Lake City school students who will be documented in the future” and (2) “All Hispanic, African American, and Pacific Islander Salt Lake City School District students who were detained, whether documented or not, during the December 16, 2010 gang sweep.”
In their opposition, defendants submitted a declaration from an SLCPD sergeant testifying that there had been only 20 individuals under the age of 19 at the time they were identified as gang members and entered into the SLCPD database. Plaintiffs moved to strike portions of this declaration from the record on August 7, 2013 on the grounds the it was defendants’ counsel and an IT professional for the police department – and not the sergeant – who conducted the analysis that reached the conclusion that there were only 20 individuals under the age of 19 at the time they were entered into the SLCPD gang member database. The dispute over the admissibility of the sergeant’s declaration lasted for almost two years, until June 29, 2015, when Judge Stewart found the sergeant’s declaration to be admissible for purposes of determining class certification. 2015 WL 13845457. Judge Stewart then heard oral argument pertaining to plaintiff’s motion for class certification on September 28, 2015. However, before the court reached its decision on class certification, parties entered offer to allow judgment and settlement negotiations.
Offer to Allow Judgment and Settlements
WVPD defendants served plaintiffs an offer to allow judgment, and plaintiffs accepted their offer on November 12, 2015. The court then entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against WVPD on December 7, 2015. WVPD paid a total of $50,000 to the named plaintiffs in damages and attorneys’ fees.
On March 16, 2016, plaintiffs and the SLCSD defendants entered into a settlement agreement. Under the settlement, SLCSD agreed to finalize a Memorandum of Understanding which would draw a clear boundary between the disciplinary functions of the SLCSD and the criminal law enforcement functions of the local police departments. In particular, the memorandum was to specify that law enforcement would not be involved in matters of routine school discipline. In addition, all SLCSD employees were required to receive training on the appropriate roles of school resource officers and school administrators, juvenile court processes, adolescent development, mental health problems, conflict resolution and de-escalation techniques, cultural competency, and alternatives to the juvenile justice system and the rights of students. SLCSD further agreed to amend school policy to include a Gang-related Activities Prohibited section that stated: “Wearing a specific color by itself won’t be cause for discipline, and just wearing a cross or Star of David without augmentation or alteration won’t be cause for discipline. In addition to the items identified in these administrative procedures as prohibited gang attire or gang symbols, document S-3: Gang Signs, Symbols, Signals, Words and Conduct Prohibited outlines the current gang indicators that may result in student disciplinary action.” Finally, SLCSD defendants agreed to pay a total of $27,500 to named plaintiffs in damages and attorneys’ fees.
On the same day, plaintiffs also settled with SLCPD defendants. As part of the settlement, the SLCPD agreed not to conduct any gang task force raid like the one conducted on December 16, 2010 at any Salt Lake City schools. The SLCPD further agreed to arrest students on school property only when an officer has probable cause to believe that the student has been or is engaged in a crime that (1) poses a real or immediate threat of injury to an individual or the public; (2) constitutes property damage; (3) involves possession or use of drugs, alcohol, or weapons; or (4) when necessary to execute warrants that cannot be effectively executed outside of school hours. SLCPD officers would not photograph juveniles holding whiteboards identifying gang affiliation, nor would they be permitted to use race, color, ethnicity, or national origin in deciding when to conduct a stop and search or seek a warrant. SLCPD offers were required to receive annual training on implicit bias, adolescent development and techniques for working with youth, their responsibilities under the Fourteenth Amendment, the problems of disproportionate minority impact, and respect for privacy and reduction of stigma. Furthermore, the SLCPD agreed to expunge any and all records identifying plaintiffs as identified or suspected gang members stemming from the December 16, 2010 gang task force operation. Finally, the SLCPD agreed to pay a total of $30,000 to named plaintiffs in damages and attorneys’ fees.
Pursuant to the March 16, 2016 settlements, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims against SLCSD and SLCPD defendants on March 17, 2016. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against the remaining defendants on April 11, 2016. This case is now closed.
Find out more about this case on the ACLU website.
Summary Authors
Sarah Portwood (3/23/2023)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5159443/parties/winston-v-salt-lake-city-police-department/
Stewart, Brian Theadore (Utah)
Stewart, Brian Theadore (Utah)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5159443/winston-v-salt-lake-city-police-department/
Last updated March 10, 2024, 4:01 a.m.
State / Territory: Utah
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Dec. 13, 2012
Closing Date: April 11, 2016
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Three parents on behalf of their minor children who were detained, interrogated, and photographed for inclusion in the gang database as part of the December 16, 2010 operation
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Mooted before ruling
Defendants
Salt Lake City School District (Salt Lake), School District
Salt Lake City Police Department (Salt Lake), City
West Valley Police Department (West Valley), City
West Jordan Police Department (West Jordan), City
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Unreasonable search and seizure
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Amount Defendant Pays: $107,500
Content of Injunction:
Provide antidiscrimination training
Issues
General:
Discrimination-area:
Discrimination-basis:
National origin discrimination
Race:
Type of Facility:
National Origin/Ethnicity: