Salt lake county jail prisoner search

This website has been created to help you get the information you need. Even if you know the name and location where the inmate is being detained, there are other pieces of information needed in order to be able to schedule a visit, call the inmate, or send them mail or money. Each facility has its own set of regulations regarding these things. In order to successfully contact the inmate, it is necessary to become familiar with the rules for the specific correctional facility.

If you need to locate an inmate, there are several ways to do so online. Each state has a website for its department of corrections, with an inmate lookup for the state run facilities. For information on federal inmates, visit the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Most jails and prisons include a list of rules and regulations on their website. Before sending mail, carefully read the rules. Nearly every facility allows an inmate to receive a standard postcard. Beyond that, the rules vary a great deal.

Some inmates may receive letters or even packages, but be aware that these are usually opened and read or searched. Including anything that is not allowed may mean that the entire letter or package will wind up in the trash.

Be sure you are following directions carefully when addressing any type of mail. Facilities often use a post office box, rather than a physical address, for inmate mail.

Summit County UT Jail

In regard to phone calls, usually prisoners are not allowed to receive a call. Some, but not all, facilities will allow prisoners to make limited collect calls, where the charges must be accepted by the person receiving the call. Requirements for scheduling a visit also differ widely. In some facilities, an inmate can only have visitors if he or she has included them on a visitor list and they have been approved.

You may not know if you have been approved until the inmate informs you. Yuam, F. Lawson, F. Accordingly, we find no error in the use of the Gamble standard by the trial court for determining whether Salt Lake County's policy violated Garcia's constitutional right to receive adequate medical care. The court's instruction read in full as follows: You are instructed as follows concerning plaintiffs' claim against defendants Salt Lake County, Delmar Larson, Dr.

Keith C. Under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, every person confined in a jail is entitled to receive certain medical care reasonably designed to meet his health care needs. This constitutional right to medical treatments is violated where there is deliberate indifference or gross negligence of jail officials or employees in regard to the serious medical needs of a person confined in jail.

Mere negligence is not enough. A medical need is "serious" if it is one that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention. Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs is shown when jail officials or employees prevent a person confined in jail from receiving recommended treatment or deny such person access to medical personnel capable of evaluating their need for treatment.

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs may also be shown by proving a pattern or practice on the part of jail officials or employees, or on the part of the governmental entity operating the jail, showing gross deficiencies in staffing, facilities, equipment, or procedures that effectively deprive persons confined in jail of reasonable and adequate medical care for their serious medical needs.

Thus, if you find that any of the above named defendants knew or should have known that Ronald James Garcia was seriously in need of medical attention, including medical diagnosis and treatment, and that these defendants, or any of them, by their conduct, acts or omissions, with deliberate indifference, failed to afford him reasonable and adequate medical care for his serious medical needs, you must find that each such defendant with respect to whom you have made such a finding by a preponderance of the evidence is liable for the violation of the civil rights of Ronald James Garcia.

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs may be shown by proving there are such gross deficiencies in staffing, facilities, equipment, or procedures that the inmate is effectively denied access to adequate medical care. See Ramos v. Lamm, F.


  • Inmate Search | Utah County Sheriff's Office - Corrections Bureau.
  • copy of birth certificate canada.
  • dissolution of marriage ohio template.
  • list of arrest in cobb county;

Here, there was no physician present at the jail most of the time. Keith Greaves, the jail physician, testified that he only came to the jail "three days a week for two hours" to make rounds and prescribe medication. He denied that he was "on twenty-four hour call. A nurse was at the jail "four to five hours five days a week. A medical technician was on duty from 5 a. His job was to pass out medications to inmates, to assist the doctor on rounds, and to take care of any medical emergencies. As many as inmates could be in jail when the jail was full. Upon Garcia's admission to the jail at about p.

Garcia was examined only once again by the medic at p. Garcia was checked approximately every 30 minutes by the search and print officer whose only medical training consisted of training in first aid. No medical personnel were present in the Salt Lake County Jail when Garcia stopped breathing after p. We conclude that the jury's finding against the County is supported by sufficient evidence of gross deficiencies and deliberate indifference in staffing and procedures to monitor persons admitted to the jail in an unconscious condition who are suspected of being intoxicated.

The record supports the conclusion that the County's policy of admitting to jail unconscious persons suspected of being intoxicated, carried out with the described deficiencies and indifference, caused a violation of Garcia's constitutional rights. In Tuttle the Court stated that [p]roof of a single incident of unconstitutional activity is not sufficient to impose liability under Monell, unless proof of the incident includes proof that it was caused by an existing, unconstitutional municipal policy, which policy can be attributed to a municipal policymaker. As discussed above, denial of Garcia's constitutional right to receive adequate medical care was caused by the existing, unconstitutional County policy or custom.


  • windows product id serial number.
  • how to find a cell phone owner.
  • Search By Name!
  • Locate an Inmate.
  • find ip address on lan.
  • Draper Prison/Utah State Prison Visiting hours, inmate phones, mail.
  • a list of epa id numbers?

Moreover, this policy was shown in the record to be attributable to the Sheriff of Salt Lake County who had served as Sheriff from through April of The Sheriff is one of the chief elected officials of the County, his office being a co-ordinate office or branch of county government, generally independent of the board of county commissioners, see Sheriff of Salt Lake County v. See Utah Code Ann. His duties include taking charge of and keeping prisoners in the county jail, inter alia.

The Sheriff's policy, also attributable to the jail physician, thus qualified as policy attributable to a municipal policymaker under Monell. Hence, the judgment here is not at odds with Tuttle. Defendant Salt Lake County contends that the jury failed to follow the court's instructions that a finding of unconstitutional conduct by an officer is a prerequisite to a finding that the County is liable. Hence Salt Lake County argues that it is entitled to a judgment of no cause of action.

Jail Screening & Release - Criminal Justice | SLCo

In the district court Salt Lake County asked that its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict be construed as a motion for judgment upon special verdict, and argued that the "jury verdict is inconsistent with the judgment for the plaintiffs. Citing Kirkendoll v. Neustrom, F. The district court rejected the County's contention, reasoning that if the County had ten people working for it and following a pattern and practice of the County the jury could find all of them not guilty, and still the cumulative effect of what they did pursuant to the practice or policy of the County could be a violation of the Act by the County.

We agree.

Directions

In pertinent part, the special verdicts were as follows: 1. Were the civil rights of the decedent, Ronald James Garcia, violated by the following defendants? We note that the County did not move for a directed verdict. However, we feel that the County can nevertheless make its argument of inconsistency of the verdicts. Wright A. Mallitz, F. Jones, F.

Prisoner Transfer Information

Miller, supra, at The district court stated: Well, let's meet that head on. I mean, certainly, if you have got ten people working for the county and all of those people working for the county are following a pattern and practice that has been laid down by the county, I think the jury could find all ten of those people not guilty or not responsible under the Civil Rights Act. But the cumulative effect of what they do pursuant to some practice or policy of the county could constitute a violation of the Civil Rights Act as against the county.

I don't —. The argument of the County takes too narrow a view of the charge. The opening paragraph of Instruction No. Salt Lake County is a defendant in this action and should be found liable to respond to the plaintiffs in damages if you find by a preponderance of the evidence that there existed a policy, practice or custom of the kind described in these instructions and which itself substantially contributed to the violation of Mr.

Garcia's civil right to adequate medical care. Although Salt Lake County is not responsible for each act committed by its individual employees, Salt Lake County should be held liable for actions which are taken by its employees which are taken pursuant to a policy, custom or practice of Salt Lake County. Instruction 11, quoted in note 3 supra, also stated alternative ways of showing deliberate indifference to serious medical needs by jail officials or employees, "or on the part of the governmental entity operating the jail.

Monell does not require that a jury find an individual defendant liable before it can find a local governmental body liable.

Although the acts or omissions of no one employee may violate an individual's constitutional rights, the combined acts or omissions of several employees acting under a governmental policy or custom may violate an individual's constitutional rights. This basis for a finding of liability against only the County is consistent with the charge, viewed as a whole, and the rationale by the trial judge. See note 8, supra. Therefore, we are convinced that there was no fatal inconsistency in the special verdicts viewed in light of the charge as a whole.

In sum, the defendant County of Salt Lake has not demonstrated any reversible error and the judgment is accordingly affirmed. Plaintiffs-appellees request that this court award them their costs and attorney's fees incurred on this appeal. They are entitled to recover such fees under 42 U. An award of costs of the appeal will be entered for plaintiffs on consideration of their bill of costs and any objections thereto. See Rule 39, F.

Back to Results. Download Print Get alerts. Garcia v. Salt Lake County F. Browse cases. Salt Lake County. Cases citing this document How cited Rife v. Jefferson I.