The E-
by page

Tumblr.jpg Google_Plus.jpg







Home / Articles / News / Cover Story Sidebars /  Judge Faust's Ruling - UHP Trooper Lisa Steed
Cover Story Sidebars

Judge Faust's Ruling - UHP Trooper Lisa Steed

By City Weekly Staff
Posted // September 8,2010 -

Utah 3rd District Judge Robert P. Faust ruled against the defendant in this May 2010 ruling, but nevertheless concluded that Utah Highway Patrol's most prolific officer on the DUI beat, Lisa Steed, violated the department's policy in pursuit of the arrest. "Although the court is troubled by Trooper Steed's failure to follow UHP policy," Faust wrote, "the Court concludes that Defendant's due process rights were not violated and he is not entitled to a dismissal."

Return to Utah Highway Patrol's DUI Super Trooper Lisa Steed

Judge Faust's Ruling - UHP Trooper Lisa Steed

Return to Utah Highway Patrol's DUI Super Trooper Lisa Steed

  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Post a comment
Posted // October 15,2013 at 08:12

This is wha thappens when a bad judge handles a case. Faust is a loser andhe scres up everything he touches. The charges should have been dismissed but Faust is so pro-prosecution that he would never do that. Faust shold go along with lying Trooper Steed


Posted // December 16,2010 at 08:57

Unfortunately, most DUI convicts believe that the aresting officer is dishonest in his/her testimony. And they are probably right. There is no departmental outcry against Ms. Steed, because this is business as usual. I think it is important for the public to understand that this is how their civil servants have been doing their jobs.


Posted // December 16,2010 at 02:07

Lisa Steed is a bad cop, she flat out lied on her police report and I filed a complaint to Internal Affairs almost a year ago. This woman lacks integrity and honesty and should not have a badge. But she keeps filling the wheel barrow full of money and the UHP doesn't care how many family's are ruined. There are honerable police officers that refer to her as the queen of metabolite and from what i gathered dont respect her. Maybe one day I will finally get to trial that is if they stop delaying it time after time. I dont care if I win or lose I just want to see her raise her hand in court and lie to God.


Posted // September 16,2010 at 09:01

This officer needs to be held accountable for the bad decisions she has made with the innocent people whose lives were ruined. If the police dept. continues to "honor" her, then they ALSO need to financially pay for all of the debt that ruined the lives of the innocent people and wipe their record clean!! I am not a drinker and never will be, and thusly do not condone drunk driving. I believe all drunk drivers need to be punished. HOWEVER, Lisa needs to come up with ways to do this that is in accordance with the law. I came away from the story wanting to applaud her, but instead viewing her as an officer who will step on everything necessary to get to the top, even if it means ruining people's lives. Can she look at herself in the mirror and be happy with that? It all comes down to one thing: Just do things in accordance with the law, it is that easy!


Posted // September 9,2010 at 15:21

That last part is interesting. Judge is stating that the officer is not required to provide a perfect investigation, and therefore he won't dismiss the case due to having not taped all of the stop, or for turning off the camera during the breathalyzer. Also mentions that the law does not require the officer to collect evidence that would help the defendent with his/her case.

Without the video evidence, many DUI cases come down to the word of the arresting officer vs. the word of the defendent. I have never heard of a case in which these two stories were in alignment. The courts generally accept the officer's testamony above the defendent's because the defendent was, presumeably, intoxicated at the time of observation. It seems to me that mandating that the stops are recorded with the equipment available in every Highway Patrol Vehicle is a reasonable way to prevent this "He said, she said" predicament.

There is a fairly obvious motive for why Officer Steed may not have wanted to have the entire stop filmed. Without the evidence captured on camera, there is no credible way to question her testimony. That she routinely forgets to not turn off the camera during stops should hold more consequence than considering her investigation less than perfect. If 90% of an investigation is being recorded on camera, and the officer decides to turn off the camera for 10% of the investigation, it does make one wonder what was going on during that 10% that the officer took active steps to prevent the recording of it.

From beginning in the 1980s and running through the 1990s, DUI laws have generally become much more strict. Prior to this time period, 0.10% - 0.15% were the standard legal limits. Special Interest Groups, such as MADD and SADD lobbied to have stricter laws be enacted. It is a hard lobby to disagree with when pictures of smashed cars, and dead high school students are displayed. States and munincipalities soon jumped on the bandwagon when they discovered how much revenue could be generated through the prosecution of DUI suspects.

Today, many states prosecute drivers with a BAC as low as 0.05%. I have to question what impairment 0.05% has on the average driver. To look at it another way, what is the increase in chance that a driver who has had one beer in the hour prior to driving 50 miles will get into an accident as compared to if the same driver had not had the beer to drink? How does this increased chance compare to that same driver if he is driving after being awake for 20 hours? Of if that same driver were driving home from a night shift? It could be said that the penalties far outweigh the infraction. Can you imagine someone running for office making that statement? Imagine the backlash "candidate supports drinking while driving!"