OGDEN — Weber County has presented its case to the U.S. Supreme Court over whether corrections deputies used unconstitutionally excessive force against a DUI arrestee in the county jail.

The appeal to the high court in Washington rests on Hyrum James Geddes’ contention that both the Fourth and 14th amendments prohibited the treatment he allegedly received in a Weber County Jail holding cell on July 16, 2017.

Lower courts ruled that Geddes’ attorney erroneously claimed a civil rights violation under the 14th Amendment. Frank Mylar, outside counsel representing Weber County, agreed, arguing in a Supreme Court brief Jan. 3 that the 14th does not address alleged violations that occur before a probable cause determination has been made in court. The proper amendment is the Fourth because it addresses incidents that happen before a probable cause determination — such as when Geddes was in a jail holding cell, according to the lower court rulings.

U.S. District Judge Howard Nielson Jr. dismissed the Geddes suit, ruling he did not have to address the merits of the case because the plaintiff’s attorney picked the wrong constitutional amendment. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Nielson, but a dissenting opinion said the case could still be heard.

Geddes’ attorney, Gregory Stevens, decided to file the Supreme Court petition after that split decision last summer. Stevens wrote that “confusing” and “conflicting” lower-court decisions need clarification on what protections apply to a suspect while being arrested and when he is under detention at a jail.

Mylar, however, urged the court not to hear the case, asserting that ample precedent exists in the lower courts to carry Weber County’s position. “The vast majority of circuit courts agree 14th Amendment protections do not attach until a probable cause determination, and there is no need to overrule the majority of circuits on this issue,” he said.

A court’s probable cause determination, he said, “provides a concrete touchpoint that is legally required to happen every time a person is detained for a prolonged period. With this approach there is no guessing when the protection of one amendment ends and the other begins.”

There had been no probable cause ruling when Geddes and four corrections officers clashed. The civil suit filed in 2018 said a Utah Highway Patrol trooper stopped and arrested Geddes and took him to the jail, where corrections deputies put him in a holding cell.

Geddes, handcuffed, was told to remove his boots and did not comply, according to the court record. In its defense, the county said Geddes’ boots needed to come off because he could have had drugs or weapons hidden in them. Jailers testified Geddes refused to remove his boots and resisted and scuffled with them as they tried to get the boots off. Geddes testified he couldn’t take off the boots because he was handcuffed and that the jailers had threatened and attacked him.

The suit alleged that deputies took Geddes to the floor, striking his head on concrete, and held him with a knee to his neck. The suit seeks more than $2 million in damages for alleged use of deliberate excessive force.

In response to Mylar’s arguments, Stevens wrote in a subsequent filing last week that the high court should resolve the lower court disagreements rather that continue to “rely on the fiction that (arrest) ends only when there has been a judicial determination of probable cause.”

The civil suit also features a conflict over whether the jail officers are covered by qualified immunity, a legal standard that says government employees are not liable for civil damages unless their actions are determined to have been “deliberately indifferent” or worse.

If the Supreme Court takes up the case, oral arguments will be heard. If not, the lower court rulings will stand.

Newsletter