best article yet about the Utah Raid and the legal system

[ChunkyAcidReflux]

http://www.newutah.com/modules.php?o...icle&sid=63032

No citizen should be subjected to criminal charges for a crime he might commit. This is a fundamental principle in our society: One does not take blame for what might happen, only for violations of the law that he actually commits.
Utah County Sheriff Jim Tracy seems to see things differently.

In an interview with the Daily Herald on Wednesday, he indicated that he believes law enforcement has the authority to assume a violation will be committed, and officers may therefore go straight to writing a citation.


That is what happened Saturday night at an outdoor music concert and dance in Diamond Fork.

The event -- a rave -- was held on private property owned by Trudy Childs. An estimated 300 young adults attended the gathering, which was shut down at 11:30 p.m. by about 90 law enforcement officers in a massive show of force that included helicopters, dogs and assault rifles.

Some plainclothes officers with cell phones had mingled in the crowd and observed illegal drug activity, which has occurred at similar events. That -- combined with law enforcement's allegation that the gathering itself was illegal because proper county permits had not been obtained -- is what triggered the raid. SWAT teams stormed the crowd to make arrests, and many attendees, including the landowner, are now crying foul.

All the facts are not yet in with regard to criminal activity in the crowd. We expect to know more in the coming days. But we do have ample information to evaluate Tracy's claim that Childs had not obtained a necessary permit for the event.

The fact is, Childs did not need a permit.

Tracy protests that she did need one, but we believe he is wrong. Here's why:

A county ordinance specifies exactly the circumstances under which a mass gathering permit must be obtained from the Utah County Commission, and when a permit is not required. No person may host a gathering "of an actual or reasonably anticipated assembly of 250 or more people which continues or can reasonably be expected to continue for 12 or more consecutive hours" unless the host has a license, the ordinance reads.

The electronic beats at the rave began thumping at 9 p.m. Saturday. We cannot know exactly how long the party would have gone if police hadn't hammered down. But we do know a few things. We know, for example, that the promoter's agreement with the sound technicians was to end the show at 6:30 a.m. Sunday, as dawn approached. Privately contracted security personnel confirmed that they, too, were scheduled for that time period.

So the concert was intended for nine-and-a-half hours, well inside the 12-hour limit. It was a business proposition, and that was the deal.

In painting a picture that the gathering violated county public assembly codes, Tracy misrepresents not only the facts in Diamond Fork but distorts the proper role of law enforcement. We hope he understands his limitations as an officer of civil government.

Tracy said that authorities reasonably anticipated a crowd of thousands and expected partygoers to linger to 9 a.m. and beyond. "People are up all night partying hard and have a camping area," he said. "If you've been up since 9 o'clock the night before, we are assuming you're not going to jump right up and get out of there, and will exceed the 12-hour period."

Read that carefully again, with particular attention to "we are assuming." Tracy is saying that the 12-hour ordinance was violated because law enforcement, not the event host, anticipated the gathering would last more than 12 hours. This is an unjustified and even dangerous view.

It is not law enforcement's prerogative to enforce assumptions -- to hand out criminal or civil citations based on what might happen. Accusations must be made on the basis of actual observable acts, not on what a cop thinks will occur in the future.

Let's say a highway patrolman with a radar gun in a 60 mph zone clocks a driver at 59 mph. He cannot ticket that driver on the assumption that the car will soon be going much faster.

In short, the anticipation of a crowd of 250 for 12 hours as specified in the law must belong to the event host. If the host believes that a gathering will not exceed 12 hours, and he ensures that it does not (as was done in the case of the Diamond Fork rave), he is simply not required to obtain a permit.

No citizen of this country is required to impose more law upon himself than is specified by statute. And no county sheriff has a right to impose it, either.

This ordinance is written in the passive voice -- specifying an event "reasonably anticipated ... to continue" for 12 hours. It doesn't say who is to do the anticipating. Apparently Tracy believes it is he himself. But this is an implausible reading of the law. Such an interpretation would make the county sheriff the sole arbiter of which public gatherings require a permit and which do not. Tracy could prohibit anything he wanted, from a political rally to a knit-in or company picnic -- any gathering that is otherwise protected under the First Amendment's guarantee of the "right of the people peaceably to assemble."

Typically, in potentially embarrassing situations, law enforcement seems to reach for every thread of support it can find to justify its actions. It appears to us that Sheriff Tracy is reaching in just this way with arguments about permits for Saturday's rave. The organizers did get the required mass-gathering permits for on-site sanitation, and that's apparently all they really needed.

We understand that law enforcement is a difficult job. We also understand that some crimes were likely committed at the rave. But officers should not attempt to make their tough job easier by playing fast and loose with statutes, or by spinning the meaning of the law in hopes of achieving a favorable public relations effect.

[lightz]

Has some good points. I's can't wait to see what happens at the end of all this. I am sure that it will be awhile.

I take it that's from the promoter's legal team?

Good points nonetheless.

[ChunkyAcidReflux]

Nope, its from the Utah daily Herrald

Originally Posted by -m-

I take it that's from the promoter's legal team?

Good points nonetheless.

Originally Posted by ChunkyAcidReflux

Nope, its from the Utah daily Herrald

Wow. Well hats off to them!

[Ash]

I'm going to assume that my neighbor is going to break into my house soon because he's a drug dealer, therefore this afternoon when I get home, I'm going to beat his ass.

[housefish]

Originally Posted by Ash

I'm going to assume that my neighbor is going to break into my house soon because he's a drug dealer, therefore this afternoon when I get home, I'm going to beat his ass.

wrench and mace to the face!!!!

[HarveytheRabbit]

Originally Posted by Ash

I'm going to assume that my neighbor is going to break into my house soon because he's a drug dealer, therefore this afternoon when I get home, I'm going to beat his ass.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

[lightz]

Originally Posted by housefish

wrench and mace to the face!!!!

Nice!

[djetaine]

okay... So they were wrong about the need for a permit for the time frame.
They did not address the fact that there were at least 300 people there and 700 tickets were presold making the 250 person limit come into effect. Why did the leave this out. The promoter still violated state law by not obtaining the required health permits for a gathering of over 250 people.
Not that im sticking up for the actions of the police. I think it was unjustified and overblown for the sole purpose of showing the might of the utah county police. But, they still didnt have the required permits. Time constraints aside, tracy was right about the amount of people.

[mal1ce]

Nice, it's about time.

[mal1ce]

Originally Posted by djetaine

okay... So they were wrong about the need for a permit for the time frame.
They did not address the fact that there were at least 300 people there and 700 tickets were presold making the 250 person limit come into effect. Why did the leave this out. The promoter still violated state law by not obtaining the required health permits for a gathering of over 250 people.
Not that im sticking up for the actions of the police. I think it was unjustified and overblown for the sole purpose of showing the might of the utah county police. But, they still didnt have the required permits. Time constraints aside, tracy was right about the amount of people.

Because it has to be both, more than 250 and more than 12 hrs...Tracy was still wrong.

[djetaine]

Oh, I was not aware that it was required to be both. I was under the impression that it was either or. I guess I missed that part. I apologize.

[Big Andy]

Originally Posted by djetaine

Oh, I was not aware that it was required to be both. I was under the impression that it was either or. I guess I missed that part. I apologize.

That jungle is wrotting your mind Joel, time for a trance infusion.




It wasn't long enough, AND the promoters DID get the health department permit, it was the "mass gathering" permit they didn't get. 2 spearate permits, if i've understood what i've read about it in the various articles.




I think tracy is full of shit with his assumptions. And not in the way you think I mean. I think he probably forgot about the 12 hour thing, had the party raided, and then said, "Oh shit, it was only scheduled until 6:30" and now has made up this assumption crap, lol. sorry, I don't give law enforcement types much credit on the intelligence end of things. The only ones I've dealt with personally I could run circles around intelectually.

[MattM]

I'm no lawyer, but shouldn't the constitutional right to assemble over ride any state law? It's like requiring a permit for freedom of speech. ? ?