Utah Court of Appeals

Can police officers be fired for threats made while intoxicated? Turner v. Lone Peak Public Safety District Explained

2010 UT App 168
No. 20090191-CA
June 24, 2010
Affirmed

Summary

Police officer Travis Turner was terminated by Lone Peak Public Safety District after making a recorded death threat against Lehi’s police chief during a phone call with his ex-wife while under the influence of alcohol and prescription medications. The district’s Appeal Board upheld the termination, finding Turner’s conduct constituted misconduct warranting dismissal.

Analysis

Background and Facts

Police officer Travis Turner was employed by the Lone Peak Public Safety District, which serves Alpine and Highland cities. During a late-night phone call with his ex-wife, Turner made death threats against Lehi’s police chief while under the influence of alcohol and legally prescribed medications. His ex-wife recorded the call and reported it to authorities. The Lehi Police Department took the threats seriously, implementing protective measures and refusing to provide backup to LPPSD officers until the matter was resolved. Turner was subsequently terminated for misconduct and conduct unbecoming an officer.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issues were whether Turner’s voluntary intoxication rendered his conduct involuntary, whether his statements were protected First Amendment speech, and whether termination was a proportionate disciplinary response. Turner argued his intoxication made the threats involuntary and that his private statements were constitutionally protected speech.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the termination under an abuse of discretion standard. The court found Turner’s intoxication was voluntary, resulting from his decision to consume alcohol while taking prescription medications. As a trained police officer, Turner should have known the dangers of mixing these substances. The court rejected the involuntary intoxication defense, noting that voluntary actions leading to intoxication make the officer responsible for resulting conduct. Turner’s constitutional claims failed for lack of preservation before the Appeal Board.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that law enforcement officers are held to high professional standards even in their private lives. Voluntary intoxication does not excuse misconduct, particularly when the officer chose to consume substances knowing their effects. Practitioners should ensure all constitutional arguments are properly preserved before administrative bodies, as appellate courts will not review unpreserved claims. The decision also demonstrates that conduct unbecoming an officer extends to private behavior that affects professional relationships and public safety.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

Turner v. Lone Peak Public Safety District

Citation

2010 UT App 168

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 20090191-CA

Date Decided

June 24, 2010

Outcome

Affirmed

Holding

A police officer’s termination for making death threats while voluntarily intoxicated constituted appropriate discipline for conduct unbecoming an officer, even where the officer claimed involuntary intoxication.

Standard of Review

Abuse of discretion – whether the appeal board abused its discretion or exceeded its authority

Practice Tip

When challenging employment terminations before appeal boards, ensure all constitutional claims are properly preserved by raising them before the board, as failure to preserve will prevent appellate review.

Need Appellate Counsel?

Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Related Court Opinions

    • Utah Court of Appeals

    State v. Lopez-Betanco

    October 20, 2022

    A trial court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to instruct the jury that a fact witness’s translation was inaccurate when the witness was not a court-appointed interpreter.
    • Appellate Procedure
    • |
    • Evidence and Admissibility
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    Read More
    • Utah Supreme Court

    Utah Department of Transportation v. Security Invest Ltd.

    December 12, 2000

    The trial court properly denied defendants’ motions for payment of interest on monies deposited by UDOT in an eminent domain proceeding because UDOT was no longer a party to the action after depositing the funds with the court.
    • Property Rights
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    Read More
About these Decision Summaries

Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.