Deseret News | Reader comments: Supreme Court: Handcuffed man can't sue UHP for injuries

Reader comments
Supreme Court: Handcuffed man can't sue UHP for injuries

Video? | 2:10 p.m. July 1, 2008

Is there a video available of this guy falling flat on his face? Now that would be funny!

Unbelievable! | 2:28 p.m. July 1, 2008

So what the court has just said is that UHP can do anything it wants without consequence. What they just ruled is that you don't have inalienable rights, and that the very government designed to protect them can violate them with impunity with not accountability. The very law that grants immunity is on it's face unconstitutional. No one is above the law! Not the Executive, Legislative, or the Judicial.

It is time we sweep out the stale and unpredictable career oriented government and renew it with fresh blood. Those who have a Constitutionally sound foundation. Every branch of this government has become bigger than the very thing it was designed to protect. In other words the program has become more important than the purpose of the program.

Extremely disappointing.

James | 2:59 p.m. July 1, 2008

No, that's not what the court said. How can you take that ruling and claim that's what it means? The last person I want interpreting the constitution is someone who makes such sweeping and distorted generalizations, such as yourself.

Comments continue below

Zacko | 3:05 p.m. July 1, 2008

So what you are saying "Unbelievable!" is that the troopers should be legally liable for an accident that occurred? I'm sure us tax payers paid for his head trauma and hospital stay, what more does he want?

It's not like they intentionally face planted the dude, who by the way, had committed a crime.

The constitution is to protect us against jack booted thugs, not UHP Troopers acting in the line of duty.

Allowing a lawsuit to continue in this case would have just cost us all money and not accomplished anything except making some ambulance chasing lawyer a fistful of money.

Dave | 3:06 p.m. July 1, 2008

@Unbelievable: Ok, i'm no fan of cops, but come on.

You really think this guy is entitled to umpty-million bucks of taxpayer money because he fell while trying to be combative with the cops? (While plastered out of his mind, and after having been driving drunk, let's not forget.)

This was a nuisance lawsuit and the only real outrage is that it got as far as it did. The plaintiff couldn't handle the responsibility that comes with drinking, so he drove. Couldn't take responsibility for his DUI, so he fought, and look what it got him. So he sued, since nothing else must be his fault, of course he'd better sue over this, right?

The court should order this idiot to reimburse legal fees to the state for this frivolous suit.

Whatever! | 3:10 p.m. July 1, 2008

So you think that this guy should be able to sue the cops because he was too drunk to control himself? Maybe you were someone who fell on your face after getting a DUI and now you just want payback? Pathetic people, they get what they deserve!

bkb | 3:18 p.m. July 1, 2008

What we need to do is make that part of the arrest procedure for all drunk drivers... handcuff them, bind their legs, then push them over face first. Good job UHP!

well... | 3:22 p.m. July 1, 2008

...they should at least help him get his face put back together.

Re Unbelievable! | 2:28 p.m. | 3:24 p.m. July 1, 2008

You said, "What they just ruled is that you don't have inalienable rights".

Since when is it your "Inalienable right" to fall on your face and get paid for it?

The "Rights" some people assume are enumerated in the Constitution vs the ones that actually are, but many Americans are perfectly willing to dismiss them (like 2nd ammendment rights) just amazes me.

Do you REALLY think if you are cuffed and decide to run and trip and fall, you have an inalienable right to sue the officer???

UNBELIEVABLE ! ! ! | 3:28 p.m. July 1, 2008

NO, the UHP cannot do anything it wants. There is no evidence of police brutality here. Where is the responsibility for driving while intoxicated? If he had not been driving under the influence he would not have been arrested in the first place. I am pleased that he was arrested and that his irresponsible behavior did not further endanger or kill someone on the highways. It is unfortunate that he was injured.

He was in their custody moron | 3:37 p.m. July 1, 2008

Re Unbelievable,

"Since when is it your "Inalienable right" to fall on your face and get paid for it?"

The moment the officer chose to take him into his custody. Had he had his hands free he may have been able to prevent himself from falling on his face by putting his arms out.

"The "Rights" some people..."

The Constitution also makes it clear that we retain rights that aren't enumerated but it is even more explicit in enumerating the "right of the people to be secure in their persons..."

"Do you REALLY think if you are cuffed and decide to run and trip and fall, you have an inalienable right to sue the officer???"

Yes I do and you and the 3 people who agreed with you are wrong.

This is what this is about: the officer violated his rights then those who agree with him violated his rights by making the ruling they did. You asked the question and I answer: YES IT IS AN INALIENABLE RIGHT EVEN IF THOSE WHO DON'T THINK SO DISAGREE. If the government chooses to take you into its custody they have a duty to keep you secure because you are unable to.

Chuck | 3:50 p.m. July 1, 2008

After reading the few posts concerning this story, I am proud of the people who stood up for the UHP and placed the responsability on the person it truely belongs. Now we need to try and get the rest of the country to follow this example.

Are you serious? | 3:59 p.m. July 1, 2008

So you beilieve the lady who spilled hot coffee on her self while at McDonalds and sued them should have had an employee poor the coffee into her cup and hold it for her while she sipped it? Wow!! I guess you could argue about that one since she was in their care while on their property, so that makes them responsible for other peoples stupidity, geeze! Unbelievable!!

j | 4:04 p.m. July 1, 2008

Your Inalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that's it

No Win | 4:08 p.m. July 1, 2008

I'll take the word of a UHP over that of a drunk driver ANY DAY. If the UHP go as far as putting the drunk in a stray jacket for their own protection then the drunk will want to sue for being put in a stray jacket. Get real. Some people are so open minded their brains fall out.

dbf | 4:10 p.m. July 1, 2008

Yes he was in their custody, however he was refusing to follow an order by an officer and was fighting them. Thus he caused them to have to take him to the ground and was hurt in the process. So, who's fault was it? Also, no reason to call people names just because you disagree with them. That is just a sign of immaturity.

Dave | 4:15 p.m. July 1, 2008

Peck's inebriated state at the time of injury probably has more to do with the ruling than any claim of negligence. He disobeyed an order from a peace officer. The cop was trying to protect peck and himself by requesting that he stay at the front of the car.

It wasn't the cop's fault. Peck willfully endangered himself.

gaw | 4:17 p.m. July 1, 2008

Got to love those drunks. Has to be someone other than themselves to blame for sheer stupidity. Drink, drive, fall down and then blame. Way to go. Obviously not too bright.

His Rights? | 4:22 p.m. July 1, 2008

Unbelievable get a clue. Just because you said it is an inalienable right doesn't make it so. His rights were in no way violated and to think they were takes some extemely distorted thinking. He was in the wrong in every way imaginable and yet you bemoan his rights. He took some of his own rights away when he chose drink and drive. I am glad the UHP arrested him before he took away my right to life. He could have easily killed any one of us INOCENT people but because of HIS stupid decision. Luckily HIS stupid decision only led to HIM getting a boo boo. HIS rights, whatever.

RE: He was in their custody moro | 5:08 p.m. July 1, 2008

HOW "UNBELIEVABLE" ! ! !

Yes! It is the right of anyone to expect "safe treatment" while in the custody of the UHP. That right is guaranteed by the constitutions (federal and state).

But no! The accused does NOT have the right to expect that there will be no possible harm as a result of HIS negligence. The officer, in trying to "slowly take down the suspect to the ground," was trying to make sure the suspect (who was shouting at the officers) didn't injure himself. What resulted was an "accident" mitigated by the actions of the suspect.

You are evil. Shame on you! | 5:20 p.m. July 1, 2008

"The officer, in trying to "slowly take down the suspect to the ground," was trying to make sure the suspect (who was shouting at the officers) didn't injure himself. What resulted was an "accident" mitigated by the actions of the suspect."

Mitigated? Are you retarded? Or just plain dumb? Because you obviously don't know the meaning of mitigated. In using mitigated you are saying that the "actions of the suspect" made this accident less severe? If anything you should be arguing the actions of the officer were the mitigating factors since it would be consistent with your argument.

Every suspect has the right to be secure in their persons even when they are being hostile, resistant or being dumb. You say that this was as a result of the negligence of the suspect but it isn't. It was a direct result of him resisting arrest but yet the officer had the higher duty and responsiblity.

We are lucky that the man didn't break his neck in the fall and was killed because we would be talking about that. If the officer stepped away, let him fall and he died would you be arguing the same? If yes, you are evil!

Read the ruling | 5:23 p.m. July 1, 2008

For those who apparently did not read the ruling, "In an unanimous ruling issued Tuesday, the justices said the troopers who arrested Thomas Peck were protected under governmental immunity from claims of negligence."

No one is immune . Not that the officer does not have the right to place this person under arrest for SUSPICION OF DUI. I'm simply saying that when you and I can be sued for negligence when we stop to help an injured motorist and our well intentioned efforts may lead to permanent injury or death, that same court will demand payment for that negligence.

If the inalienable rights are left for a few men and women in black robes to determine, then we have no inalienable rights and they become the creator. As Jefferson declared the Supreme Court is subject to the Constitution not the Constitution to the Supreme court.

His right to be secure in his person was transfered to the state and they were negligent.

re: His Rights. It is you who needs to get a clue about the broad rights of the individual and the narrow enumerated rights of the state. He only surrenders some rights if and when he is convicted.

He has the same rights evil jerk | 5:29 p.m. July 1, 2008

"Unbelievable get a clue."

He doesn't need to get a clue but you need to get a clue!

"Just because you said it is an inalienable right doesn't make it so. His rights were in no way violated and to think they were takes some extemely distorted thinking."

Just because you say it isn't an inalienable right doesn't make it so. His rights were violated in several ways and to think otherwise takes some extremely retarded thinking on your part.

"He took some of his own rights away when he chose drink and drive. I am glad the UHP arrested him before he took away my right to life."

I guess your life is more important than his so you give your buddy the cop the right to put his life on the line because he did it to you by driving drunk. Poor you! His family doesn't deserve justice even though jerks like you could have caused his death. Is that you Officer Moron?

"Luckily HIS stupid decision only led to HIM getting a boo boo. HIS rights, whatever."

Your rights. Whatever. I coulod care less if you died because your right to life risked his evil jerk.

bilbo | 5:36 p.m. July 1, 2008

I am not taking sides here...BUT the Constitution says:"....have certin UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. Among these are nlife, liberty and the putsuit of happiness"

This Constitution does NOT say we ONLY have life, liberty and the pirsuit of happiness.
It says these are AMONG the OTHER "certain unalienable rights"

The problem with a judicial system that answers to NO electorate is the meaning and intent of the Constitution had been so thoroughly bastardized that we do not insist on these rights that have NOT been deliniated.

remember: "...AMONG these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

The Constitution also gives ALL rights to the STATES and citizens that have not been specifically given to the Federal Government. We have given up our birthrights in most cases.
The Supreme Court of the United States has stolen them from us with our own political complicity.

We have met the enemy and it is us!.

Wow. | 5:38 p.m. July 1, 2008

After reading so many abusive comments, I hope the Des. News moderator removes them. So many of you are getting out of control here.

Re: Read the ruling | 5:39 p.m. July 1, 2008

Read the ruling,

I agree with you! If I helped someone and caused their death as a result of my negligence I could easily be sued yet this officer placed this man's life in danger. If the article is correct and this man was driving under the influence he placed the life of others at risk, he could be sued for his act of negligence if he caused their deaths.

Had he caused them injury or death as a result of his driving they would be able to sue in addition to criminal action yet the actions of this officer acting on their behalf isn't able to be sued even though his actions directly caused and contributed to this man falling and injuring himself. Had he died the Supreme Court would have likely made the decision in a case involving his family.

They wouldn't get justice!

Certain rights are inalienable and some of those rights are life, liberty and to be secure in our person.

If the state is going to take us into their custody and deprive us of our liberty they must ensure we are secure in our persons and their actions don't cause our deaths or injury.

bilbo | 5:55 p.m. July 1, 2008

take it to Federal Court.

Get it right | 6:02 p.m. July 1, 2008

The officer has a duty to try/attempt/put forward a best effort. One of the guys above said: "If the government chooses to take you into its custody they have a duty to keep you secure because you are unable to." They have a duty to try to keep you secure. If the police officer was driving and obeying traffic laws and a drunk hit the cruiser and killed Peck, does Peck win that lawsuit. No first off because of immunity, but also because the officer was attempting to follow approved procedures. In doing so he has immunity from accident and effects beyond his control such as slipping on the wet asphalt. Several State Supreme Court Justices and I agree. Not only on this point, but on good sameritans who stop and attempt to help others. They disagree with you on your opinion on immunity. I trust them and their many years experience combined with their law degrees. Do you have a law degree or just an opinion? Your opinion is valid, but it is just that, an opinion not base on law.

To further validate my point | 6:21 p.m. July 1, 2008

Read down a few headlines below this one to get just the latest example of another former high level government official (District Attorney) caught in the act of burglary. Look at his suspended sentence and then tell me justice was served. I've seen harsher punishment for traffic infractions. Tell me about blind trust in government without checks and balances.

"It is the nature and disposition of almost all men as soon as they get a little authority as they suppose they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion." (D & C 121:39) Experience has witnessed to me this truth.

When will this people wake up to the fact that government officials are not gods. They are supposed to be servants of the people, bound by the limitations of the Constitution (The Supreme Law of the Land).

Is the servant greater than the Master. By what authority can man act as such. That is why rights are referred to as inalienable. Men can only suspend them with limitations until they have been proven to have violated another's.

Otherwise why not just authorize those with a badge to shoot all lawbreakers according to their discretion. Appease the taxpayer.

re: Get it right | 7:09 p.m. July 1, 2008

I trust the founders of this nation and the God who inspired them before I would trust someone with a degree on their wall. You seem to think that a fundamental truth gives sway to a piece of paper on the wall.

Since laws exist to preserve justice and moral law is the measure by which laws are formulated then as Jefferson stated, "State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules."

Jefferson also declared, "Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure."

That is not to say that this Supreme court has been off the reservation on every ruling. I think they have been right more times than not, but some of their recent rulings seem to contradict previous rulings depending on whether the defendant is powerful or small.

Get it right, re: Get it right | 7:25 p.m. July 1, 2008

Let me get this right. You are saying that God inspired Jefferson, a Deist who did not believe that God intervened in the world or concerned himself in the affairs of humans. Sorry, it doesn't make sense.

Clearly | 7:30 p.m. July 1, 2008

the UHP should have called ahead to disbatch and requested that the rain be stopped and the UHP
dryer-mobile be sent to dry the area of the arrest. The Dui limo should have been sent so the (alleged) suspect could be served an ice cold beer by our public servants (UHP) so he could relax before any testing or arrest had taken place.

I just can't understand how people can be so mean to (alleged) criminals who have no regard for the law. Shame on you UHP, next time you make a stop be
sure that the sky is blue and there is no obstacles that could cause harm to (alleged)criminals. Also make sure that you take your happy pills so the (alleged) criminal feels comfortable during the arrest.

Three cheers to Life, Liberty and the (happy) pursuit of (alleged) criminals.

Hey.. | 7:34 p.m. July 1, 2008

the guy was drunk! He put himself in danger, nobody else did! The UHP did every one a favor of getting the guy off the street. If he wasn't drunk he wouldn't have fallen over and he also wouldn't have been pulled over by the UHP for being drunk. So he did it to himself by putting the liquir in his body. Good job UHP!! Sorry Peck no pity here. Pay your dues!

Give us all a break | 7:35 p.m. July 1, 2008

After reading these postings one thing is perfectly clear. Some people have nothing better to do with their time than to post inflammatory statments on these web sites. It is utterly amazing that by the end of this post we are quoting Thomas Jefferson and calling each other names, and the real issue at hand is lost in all of this "discussion". Peck was injured due to a number of decisions that HE made, starting with drinking alcohol, then driving, and finally fighting with troopers and refusing to comply with their REASONABLE request to remain at the front of the cruiser so a place could be cleared for him. Tell me where in this scenario the troopers were neglegent and in any way caused Mr. Peck's injuries. Enough said. Personal responsibility people! The Constitution doesn't gaurantee you the right to be an idiot. In the word's of John Wayne," Life is tough. It's tougher if your stupid." Maybe Peck should take that one to heart.

Jimmy | 7:53 p.m. July 1, 2008

Read the Eleventh Amendment and some of the cases that deal with that amendment. Do your research before you claim things are unconstitutional.

Laughable | 9:06 p.m. July 1, 2008

Some of your comments are better than a Laurel and Hardy movie, or a Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis movie, or a Aboott and Costello movie.

Talking as if you are a lawyer and basing your opinions on what a news article says. We know we can trust all journalists to be asbolutely ethical and honest and unbiased. If you believe that I have several bridges and a few islands west of Nevada to sell you.

djt | 9:32 p.m. July 1, 2008

re read the ruling.
1.I thought that governmental immunity (sovereign immunity)was in the constitution. article 2 and the 11th amendment.
2. Good Samaritan laws in every state protect good intention efforts to help injured motorists and others who act in good faith to help injured people.
3. Peck was not injured by the actions of the UHP. Being arrested does not place a responsibility on the officer to suspend the law of gravity. Did the officer make a reasonable, good faith effort to protect Peck? I think so.

A drunk falling down does not sound like police brutality to me.

bilbo | 10:11 p.m. July 1, 2008

"To further validate my point"...come on. This "...former high level government official (District Attorney) caught in the act of burglary" is hardly a high level government official. SHE (mot HE) was a ;crime victim counselor:; a person who meets with a crime victim a nd tells them what their options are and advises them to ask for compenation or tells them how not feel like a 'victim'.
Hardly a "high level government official"; just one of the lowest level employees in the prosecutors office. Not one to make policy or even advise policy.
no need to inflate anything here.

jw layton | 11:19 p.m. July 1, 2008

I was arrested by an SP in the AF back in 83 for not having my line badge visible. I was complying but he slammed me down and busted my face. He fabricated the report and there was a real threat that I would stand trial for resisting arrest. I let it go. However, my moto is: when institution justice fails, primative justice prevails. About a year later I found him outside a local saloon slightly drunk. I was very careful that I didn't kill him but his mother wouldn't have known him when I was done. This guy getting slammed may have been an accident or not. Cops lie as much as anyone else. If the State assumes no responsibility for how someone is treated when the are in custody then there is no incentive to make sure the arrested is reasonably protected from harm.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.