What constitutes vehicular pursuit for Utah police officers? Perez v. South Jordan City Explained

In Perez v. South Jordan City, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed when a police officer’s actions constitute a vehicular pursuit requiring activation of emergency equipment and the standards for reviewing employment termination decisions by municipal appeal boards.

Background and Facts

Officer Brett Perez participated in a high-speed chase in May 2009. During the incident, Perez drove at 70 mph in a 35 mph zone while attempting to parallel another officer pursuing a fleeing suspect, but failed to activate his lights and siren. Later, he entered an intersection through a red light without activating his siren. Following this incident and considering three prior disciplinary actions from the previous fourteen months, Police Chief Lindsey Shepherd terminated Perez. The South Jordan City Appeal Board affirmed the termination.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented two primary issues: (1) whether Perez was engaged in a vehicular pursuit requiring activation of emergency equipment under Utah Code § 41-6a-212 and department policy, and (2) whether his termination was proportional to his misconduct and consistent with past department discipline.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court affirmed the Board’s decision. Regarding the pursuit issue, the court found that South Jordan’s policy defined “vehicular pursuit” as “an active attempt by a law enforcement officer in an authorized emergency vehicle to apprehend fleeing suspect(s) who are attempting to avoid apprehension through evasive tactics.” Perez’s high-speed driving to apprehend a fleeing suspect clearly fell within this definition, despite his argument that he was merely engaging in “normal patrolling activities.”

On the proportionality and consistency challenges, the court applied the two-pronged test from Kelly v. Salt Lake City Civil Service Commission but emphasized this is not a rigid requirement. The court found Perez failed to establish a prima facie case of inconsistent discipline because his comparison chart lacked crucial details about other officers’ disciplinary histories and circumstances.

Practice Implications

This decision provides important guidance for both employment law and police procedure cases. When challenging municipal employment discipline, practitioners must present detailed evidence showing similarly situated employees received lighter punishment, not merely lists of similar violations. The case also clarifies that police departments’ written policies control over informal training definitions when determining whether conduct constitutes a vehicular pursuit requiring emergency equipment activation.