Man arrested after police say he threatened Salt Lake City mayor after city's flag change
A Farmington man was arrested Tuesday after police say he made online threats against Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall and then showed up at Salt Lake City Hall after being questioned about it.
Jason Guy Rogers, 44, was arrested for investigation of electronic communication harassment and stalking, per a jail report. He was booked into the Davis County Jail but has since been released, according to jail records.
'The mayor's office is monitoring the situation and appreciates the swift and professional investigation by the Salt Lake City and Farmington police departments,' Andrew Wittenberg, a spokesman for the Salt Lake City Mayor's Office, said in a statement to KSL.com.
The investigation began shortly after May 6, when Mendenhall proposed three new city flag designs to bypass a new state law that directs which types of flags government entities can fly. The new flags use the sego lily from the primary city flag on new flags representing the LGBTQ communities and Juneteenth celebrations.
Members of the Salt Lake City Council quickly adopted the measure, codifying the change on the eve of HB77 going into law, which would have otherwise barred the city from flying all three flags.
Salt Lake City police began a 'coordinated investigation' with the Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office, Farmington Police Department, Davis County District Attorney's Office and Statewide Information and Analysis Center after coming across 'alleged threats' made against Mendenhall, said Brent Weisberg, a spokesman for the Salt Lake City Police Department.
The posts, which were first made on the social media platform X on May 9, were sent by an account traced back to Rogers, Farmington police wrote in an affidavit.
'When you see her and her family, end them immediately. Utah will rise up,' one of the posts read, along with a blood drop and a face with crossed-out eyes emojis. Other posts also referenced threats, police wrote in the report.
While the mayor last posted on X in December, police said she still has 'direct access to see' messages on the account. The police report says a Farmington officer contacted Rogers on Tuesday, and Rogers said he 'did make comments about being upset over the changing of the flag proposal.'
'However, he denied making any comments that would indicate he threatened anybody. He told me he believed his account must have been 'hacked' when those specific comments were made,' the report states.
An hour later, the account linked to Rogers responded 'time for action' to another post from the mayor's account, the report states. Farmington police said that they were informed a truck identified as Rogers' vehicle through a license plate-reader system had pulled up to the mayor's 'place of work.' The driver attempted to enter the building through its locked side doors before trying to enter through the main entrance.
'Security personnel made eye contact with (the man) from inside; (he) turned around and walked to his truck. He then drove from the area,' the report stated.
The Salt Lake City Mayor's Office confirmed to KSL.com that the man was spotted by Salt Lake City police and by city security staff, both of whom are stationed at the Salt Lake City-County Building. Officials said the incident occurred before the Salt Lake City Council convened Tuesday afternoon for meetings often attended by the mayor.
Salt Lake City's Violent Criminal Apprehension Team located Rogers and arrested him shortly after, Weisberg said. He was transferred to Farmington police, who booked him into Davis County Jail.
'We're grateful to our officers, detectives, victim advocates and law enforcement partners for their support and collaboration as this case developed,' he said in a statement, adding that the incident remains under investigation.
Wittenberg said the mayor's office will not release 'any additional information' about the case 'out of respect for the investigative and judicial processes.'
It wasn't immediately clear if Rogers had obtained legal representation.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
On a big decision day, the Supreme Court sent a message about unity
Supreme Court justices sent a message to the American public on Thursday: We're not as divided as you think. Of the six rulings that were released, four were unanimous, including the opinions in high-profile battles over reverse discrimination and faith-based tax breaks. Another decision was nearly unanimous, with just one justice peeling away on one part of the ruling. And the sixth decision had just one dissent, meaning that nearly all of the justices agreed with the plan to dismiss the case as 'improvidently granted.' Here's an overview of the six rulings released on Thursday — and a look at what's still to come from the Supreme Court in June. Ruling: Unanimous In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the court was considering whether members of a majority group, such as straight, white males, should have to meet a higher burden of proof in order to make an employment discrimination claim. The case was brought by Marlean Ames, a straight, white woman, who accused her former employer of privileging LGBTQ employees during the promotion process. Ames lost in front of lower courts, but the Supreme Court overturned those decisions on Thursday. The justices unanimously said that members of majority groups should not have to meet a higher burden of proof and sent Ames' case back to the lower courts for reconsideration. The question in this case is whether ... a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group must also show 'background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' We hold that this additional 'background circumstances' requirement is not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in the opinion. Ruling: Unanimous In Smith & Wesson Brands v. Mexico, the court was asked to determine whether the Mexican government could sue seven gun manufacturers based in the U.S. over their role in unlawful gun sales in Mexico. The Supreme Court unanimously said on Thursday that the Mexican government's lawsuit cannot move forward 'because Mexico's complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers.' 'We have little doubt that, as the complaint asserts, some such sales take place — and that the manufacturers know they do. But still, Mexico has not adequately pleaded what it needs to: that the manufacturers 'participate in' those sales 'as in something that (they) wish to bring about,'' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the opinion. Ruling: Unanimous In Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the state of Wisconsin was violating the First Amendment's religious freedom protections by denying a faith-based tax break to a group of Catholic nonprofits. The nonprofits said their service to people in need was clearly motivated by Catholic teachings, but Wisconsin officials said they didn't qualify for the religious exemption to the state's unemployment tax because they did not seek to serve only Catholics or evangelize to their clients, as the Deseret News previously reported. State officials won in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which said that the Catholic nonprofits' work did not serve 'primarily religious purposes.' In Thursday's unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reversed that decision, ruling that Wisconsin was violating the First Amendment by privileging certain religious beliefs and actions over others. 'It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain 'neutrality between religion and religion.' There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the opinion. Ruling: Unanimous In CC/Devas (Mauritius) v. Antrix, the justices were considering under what circumstances federal courts in the U.S. can assert jurisdiction over foreign states. The case stemmed from a conflict between a company that's active in the U.S. and a corporation owned by India. The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled that federal courts did have jurisdiction over India in this dispute and reversed a decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion. Ruling: Nearly unanimous, with one justice taking issue with one part of the majority opinion. In Blom Bank v. Honickman, the court was considering whether victims of terrorist attacks or their surviving family members could reopen their case against a bank that had allegedly aided and abetted terrorists by providing financial services. The Supreme Court ruled that the people who brought the case did not meet the high standard that must be cleared to reopen the case. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, was nearly unanimous. Eight of the justices, including Thomas, joined it in full, but Jackson only joined it in part. Ruling: Dismissed as improvidently granted, with one justice dissenting to the dismissal In Lab Corp v. Davis, the justices were considering whether a federal court can certify a class action suit if some of the parties in the suit lack legal standing. A majority of the justices decided to dismiss the case as improvidently granted, meaning that they felt the court should never have agreed to weigh in. Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented to that decision, writing that he felt it was possible — and would be valuable — to rule on the case. The Supreme Court will release around two dozen more rulings throughout the month of June as it works to wrap up its 2024-25 term by early July. The justices have yet to announce their decision in four of the five cases that the Deseret News highlighted in its list of this term's highest profile battles. The Supreme Court's next decision day has not yet been announced, but it will likely be Thursday, June 12.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court sides with Ohio woman in 'reverse discrimination' case
The US Supreme Court has sided with an Ohio woman who alleged she was discriminated against at her job because she was heterosexual. The justices voted unanimously in a ruling focused on evidence standards that could make it easier to file similar "reverse discrimination" cases. Marlean Ames said that despite working for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 years, she was denied a promotion and then demoted. She had appealed to the court to challenge the standards required to prove her case. The decision effectively lowers the burden of proof required for people who are members of a majority group - such as white or heterosexual people - to make discrimination claims. US court precedent covering some states, including Ohio, had required that members of majority groups show additional "background circumstances" to prove their case or evidence showing a pattern of discrimination. The court has now ruled that the standard of evidence for a discrimination claim should be the same, regardless of a person's identity. Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson, one of the court's liberals, wrote the official opinion, with concurring opinions from conservatives Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch. The court concluded that anti-discrimination and equal protection laws were meant to apply to all Americans. "By establishing the same protections for every 'individual'—without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone," she wrote. The court did not consider Ms Ames' original discrimination suit. The justices said it was up to lower courts that had initially ruled against her to evaluate the case under the clarified evidence standards. Legal experts say employment discrimination and bias cases can be difficult to demonstrate, regardless of the burden of proof. Ms Ames had said she had positive performance reviews, but a promotion she sought was given to a lesbian. She was then demoted and her job was given to a gay man. In a lawsuit, she argued her employer had a preference for LGBTQ staff members and denied her opportunities because she identifies as straight. Lower courts ruled that she had failed to provide sufficient evidence of her claim, propelling the burden of proof question to the Supreme Court. At a February hearing, justices on both sides ideologically appeared sympathetic to her argument. US Supreme Court hears arguments in 'straight discrimination' case
Washington Post
5 hours ago
- Washington Post
EU court urged to rule against Hungary's anti-LGBTQ+ law
BUDAPEST, Hungary — The advocate general for the European Union's highest court on Thursday urged the court to rule that Hungary violated the bloc's laws and fundamental values when it passed legislation barring the availability of LGBTQ+ content to minors under 18. The non-binding opinion from the European Court of Justice's Advocate General, Tamara Capeta, states that the legislative changes adopted by Hungary's right-wing populist government violate several rights protected by the EU, 'namely the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex and sexual orientation, the respect for private and family life, the freedom of expression and information, as well as the right to human dignity.' Hungary's law, adopted in 2021 by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's ruling Fidesz party, prohibited the display of content to minors that depicts homosexuality or gender change, while also providing harsher penalties for crimes of pedophilia. The government has argued its policies, including a more recent law and constitutional amendment that effectively ban the popular Budapest Pride event , seek to protect children from what it calls 'sexual propaganda.' But critics of the legislation have compared it to Russia's gay propaganda law of 2013, and say it conflates homosexuality with pedophilia as part of a campaign ploy to mobilize Fidesz's conservative voter base. In her opinion, Capeta rejected Hungary's justification that the measures are aimed at protecting children, since the legislation 'prohibits portrayal of ordinary lives of LGBTI people, and is not limited to shielding minors from pornographic content, which was prohibited by the law in Hungary already.' She also wrote that Hungary has not offered any proof that content which portrays the ordinary lives of LGBTQ+ people has a negative effect on the healthy development of minors. 'Consequently, those amendments are based on a value judgment that homosexual and non-cisgender life is not of equal value or status' to heterosexual life, Capeta wrote. She urged the EU court to rule in favor of the bloc's executive commission — which launched an infringement procedure against Hungary over the law shortly after it was passed — on all counts. Opinions by advocates general are often but not always followed by the European Court of Justice, which will make a final ruling on the case at a later date.
