OGDEN — The case of a man who alleged that Weber County Jail deputies used excessive force against him after a DUI arrest has reached the doorstep of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The attorney for Hyrum James Geddes filed a petition with the high court in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 30 asking justices to hear arguments on lower-court decisions that upheld deputies’ actions in a jail holding cell on July 16, 2017.

Geddes wants the high court to decide whether constitutional protections against the use of unreasonable force were available to him on that day under both the Fourth and 14th amendments. His attorney, Gregory Stevens, decided to file the Supreme Court petition after a split decision in the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver last summer.

Stevens wrote that “confusing” and “conflicting” lower-court decisions need clarification on what protections apply to a suspect while being arrested and later when he is under detention at a jail.

Attorneys for Weber County have until Jan. 3 to file reply arguments at the Supreme Court. The court then will decide whether to hear arguments in the case or let the existing decisions stand.

Frank Mylar, outside counsel for the county, said Tuesday he is hopeful the lower-court rulings will be upheld. “All along we have shown that the officers all acted professionally and did everything they were supposed to do by the textbook and did everything correctly,” Mylar said.

The civil suit filed in 2018 against Weber County and four jail deputies 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 excessive force.

But U.S. District Judge Howard Nielson Jr. ruled in August 2020 that Geddes claimed a civil rights violation under the wrong constitutional provisions. Attorney Stevens claimed 14th Amendment violations, but Nielson said the case should have been argued under the Fourth Amendment and therefore he need not address the merits of the claim.

On appeal, Stevens argued that the case could be considered under either amendment. In a strongly worded majority opinion, a three-member panel of the circuit court rejected that argument on a 2-1 decision in June.

In a dissenting opinion of the three-judge panel, Judge Robert Bacharach said the merits of Geddes’ case should be heard, citing previous cases in which appellate courts had allowed suits to proceed even though a plaintiff may have cited the wrong constitutional amendment.

Bacharach said his analysis concludes that the deputies did violate Geddes’ rights with the use of excessive force. The judge said Stevens correctly pointed to 10th Circuit precedent “that had prohibited officers from using force against an arrestee who’d already been subdued or continuing to apply pressure to a suspect’s back after he’d already been restrained.”

Court records said Geddes was stopped for speeding, suspected DUI and carrying a dangerous weapon, with two rifles found in his vehicle.

“Little force is appropriate when jailers are confronted by someone suspected of nonviolent misdemeanors,” Bacharach said, adding that Geddes did not pose an immediate threat to anyone’s safety.

“Geddes was handcuffed, and he faced his cell wall with his hands behind his back while surrounded by four jailers. It is difficult to imagine that he could have harmed the jailers or anyone else from this position,” the judge said.

The county argued that Geddes was not seriously injured, but Bacharach noted that Geddes testified he suffered a head injury and continued to feel its effects. A judge or jury could reasonably regard the head injury as serious, the judge said.

Regarding the restraint, the judge said precedent clearly established “that putting substantial or significant pressure on a suspect’s back while that suspect is in a face-down prone position after being subdued and/or incapacitated constitutes excessive force.” The jailer kept his knee on the back of Geddes’ neck even after deputies pulled off his boots, the judge noted.

Bacharach said he concluded that the deputies were not entitled to qualified immunity, which shields government employees from liability in civil suits.

In the DUI case, Geddes, now 38, of Arizona, eventually pleaded guilty in Ogden Justice Court to a reduced misdemeanor charge of impaired driving and was sentenced to a suspended 180-day jail sentence.

Newsletter