5 resign in Utah County sheriff's office sex case

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Cid
    March 25, 2008 9:25 a.m.

    I agree with Cindy about the mug shots on the web site. A person wheather proven guilty or not gets their picture put on the web site. Why? Just because one is arrested that is not proof that they are guilty. What Utah Law allows this? Isn't this deformation of character when one is not guilty?
    Why not put the 5 people involved names and mug shots on the jail web site also?

  • utahsucks
    Nov. 13, 2007 2:08 p.m.

    I agree with Cindy, the Utah County Jail has a web site where they put up everyones pictures with their crimes. Since we pay the taxes for this facility to operate I want to know why these sicko's aren't having to smile for a mug shot. After all in Happy Valley Adultry is still against the law, though rarely prosecuted, I think they deserve some public humility. Sad for the spouses of these maniacs.

  • Me
    Nov. 2, 2007 2:27 p.m.

    I know the details of the case because of my job, don't ask me how. For those of you who want some detail, here it goes. For those of you who don't, just skip ahead.
    All of the men were involved with the same woman sexually OFF DUTY. The reason why they got fired is because they all signed an agreement to avoid adultery. So, what got them in trouble was the fact that they were married, not that they were having sex. What is a bit disgusting is that all the men knew about each other, and even referred the woman's services to each other.

  • tina
    Oct. 28, 2007 5:10 p.m.

    The female involved was a married woman.I guess they failed to leave that out.I would hope she is prosecuted.What was she thinking or should I say which male was she thinking about during these activities?

  • cindy
    Oct. 26, 2007 10:45 p.m.

    why is it that it is public record and anyone can look up the mug shots and all the details of anyone that has been arrested and booked in the utah county jail, but it is a big hush hush when it comes to the names of all involved in this discusting act these 5 people were involved in. The county jail is more than happy to plaster all the people who have been arrested for the last 20 or so years but they sure cant make the public aware of the things that their employees are doing.. If there is only 1 female involed does this mean she was doing this for job security or could we call this prostitution?????

  • voyeuristic press, hidden truth
    Oct. 3, 2007 12:05 a.m.

    Joe Moe said, "But I still believe in a case like this one that common decency and discretion ruled the day. Let's not forget: they committed no crime, and the proper authorities are handling in fine."

    JP says, "The news today pays too much time spoon feeding us everything, it's great when we're given the chance to exercise our brains for once."

    Where was the decency in the DN's special link to the pornographically-styled Starr report on Clinton? Talk about voyeuristic! If it's about liberals and Dems, it's smackdown time for these self-righteous guardians. If it comes close to sacred bovines, e.g., Utah County cops, COVER IT UP! Little wonder Utah and Utah County do not engender trust among business, voters and religion consumers outside and inside the fold. In homogeneity we trust!
    The reporting makes a Victorian look licentious.

  • Citizen
    Oct. 2, 2007 10:05 p.m.

    They say the devil is in the details...and one hopes that they weren't forced to resign for purely private behavior because our community as a whole finds their actions "unseemly". Please tell me it was on the job. Then I can relax. Otherwise, how do you spell l-a-w-s-u-i-t?

  • JohnG
    Oct. 2, 2007 9:22 p.m.

    Spare the details Sheriff's Dept.....Lets keep Happy Valley happy LOL

  • RangerGordon
    Oct. 2, 2007 5:29 p.m.

    JP: The fact is, we don't know what happened. We can imagine, though, and what is going through our imaginations is probably much more salacious than reality.

    On the other hand, some of those sheriffs are pretty hot. It's too bad that these days civilians seldom get the opportunity to get out of a speeding ticket the old-fashioned way.

  • family city USA no more
    Oct. 2, 2007 2:53 p.m.

    Utah County is really going down hill. Arresting a grandma for not watering grass, a corrupt councilwoman taking bribes from developers, and now this!

  • JP
    Oct. 2, 2007 2:45 p.m.

    re: What. Your request for more details can be categorized under "The dumbing down of america".

    Why does the article have to go into anymore detail? Isn't it clear enough what happened. 4 dudes and 1 woman. C'mon isn't it pretty evident what happened, or do you need a play by play with computer animation? Why does everything have to be idiot proof? (That's not a personal attack, that's a marketing term).

    The news today pays too much time spoon feeding us everything, it's great when we're given the chance to exercise our brains for once.

  • Going away present
    Oct. 2, 2007 12:58 p.m.

    Forced to resign is more like it and the 20 year vet might get to retire with benefits, that is a nice send off, while the junior employees just walk. I hope they all sue if he gets retirement.

  • kevin case
    Oct. 2, 2007 9:45 a.m.

    If it was on duty then of course they should be gone. we dont pay cops to engage in sex on duty. sounds like the sheriff did the right thing by investigating the case and the officers leaving rather than spending more tax dollars by waisting time when they knew they were wrong.

  • Joe Moe
    Oct. 2, 2007 8:01 a.m.

    To What: that was actually very witty! Thanks for the chuckle, seriously. And you make a good point, to a point.

    But I still believe in a case like this one that common decency and discretion ruled the day. Let's not forget: they committed no crime, and the proper authorities are handling in fine.

  • What
    Oct. 2, 2007 7:50 a.m.

    Makes the story.

    Next weeks headline "Man Put in Some Jail for Doing Something at That One Place by the Thing. Certain Agencies are Looking for That Other Dude!!!"

  • Joe Moe
    Oct. 2, 2007 7:37 a.m.

    I think it safe to say the left the "what" out in order to avoid being voyeuristic. I really don't think it's our concern! I was actually pleasantly surprised at the restraint, because many media sources would take advantage of a sensationalistic event like this. Kudos to the reporter and editors!

  • J Fawson
    Oct. 2, 2007 6:38 a.m.

    I ain't no reporter, but I believe the "what" was left out of this story. What, exactly, did they do?