Mandatory Evacuations Question

[Paul]

So I see these mandatory evacuation things occasionally. Can the police really force you to leave your home? I was visiting with my wife about this the other day and saying I don't think I would leave in most circumstances if the cops knocked on my door and told me to leave. What I want to know is can they really force you to leave? What happens if you refuse?

[DiscoLives4ever]

So I see these mandatory evacuation things occasionally. Can the police really force you to leave your home? I was visiting with my wife about this the other day and saying I don't think I would leave in most circumstances if the cops knocked on my door and told me to leave. What I want to know is can they really force you to leave? What happens if you refuse?

I have nothing to back this up, but I'm guessing they can strongly urge you to leave, and if you don't then you lose some safety net and insurance protections. Not sure though

[Snowman]

Speaking of this... the fire that started on 6/20/12 has caused police to order evacuations in saratoga springs, and eagle moutatian. I don't know if it's manditory or not though...

[DiscoLives4ever]

Speaking of this... the fire that started on 6/20/12 has caused police to order evacuations in saratoga springs, and eagle moutatian. I don't know if it's manditory or not though...

Some are, some are voluntary

[FrankenHollow]

I can't provide you with an example right now, but there have been several court decisions that support mandatory evacuation orders for fire, police, military, and medical emergencies.

It always comes down to a single concept:
If you stay (voluntarily, or not), you place unnecessary burden on the LEOs, soldiers, fire-fighters, or medical personnel, in that they must weigh your presence in their decision making process. They are more efficient when they don't have that distraction. Trying to protect you could result in other civilians or emergency personnel being injured; or attention being diverted from places or persons where it is needed more.

It's a case of, "screw the individual; we have other civilians and our personnel to protect."

Some states have ruled that you can stand your ground against any threat, but you lose all rights to protection (governmental, institutional, insurance, lawsuits ...everything). Washington is one of those states. If you choose to stay, they act as if you are not there at all. But, if you, somehow, cause some one else to be injured (even indirectly) while trying to help or save you, you are liable for any damages they or their family try to recover from you or your estate.

I don't know where Utah stands.



Kind of makes you think for a while, when you compare three concepts:
1. They can force you from your house to protect themselves and others.
2. They can illegally enter your home on a wrong-address no-knock warrant, and hold you liable when you try to defend your family from unannounced dark figures with guns.
3. Yet... they are not at all obligated to protect you from any danger or threat; and exercise that concept all the time in our courts.

[Paul]

So does anybody know what the law is in Utah?
The Saratogo Springs fire said "Mandatory Evacuation."
We see these occasional gas leaks, toxic spills, suicidal neighbor things, etc. where there are also what I think are typically called mandatory evacuations.
I have no problem with someone that chooses to not evacuate simply being on their own and the government (emts, police, firefighters, etc.) simply pretending the person that ignored their order doesn't exist. That makes sense to me.
I just want to know what the law is in Utah. What the consequences are in Utah if you choose to not evacuate?

[Cinhil]

I can't provide you with an example right now, but there have been several court decisions that support mandatory evacuation orders for fire, police, military, and medical emergencies.

It always comes down to a single concept:
If you stay (voluntarily, or not), you place unnecessary burden on the LEOs, soldiers, fire-fighters, or medical personnel, in that they must weigh your presence in their decision making process. They are more efficient when they don't have that distraction. Trying to protect you could result in other civilians or emergency personnel being injured; or attention being diverted from places or persons where it is needed more.

It's a case of, "screw the individual; we have other civilians and our personnel to protect."

Some states have ruled that you can stand your ground against any threat, but you lose all rights to protection (governmental, institutional, insurance, lawsuits ...everything). Washington is one of those states. If you choose to stay, they act as if you are not there at all. But, if you, somehow, cause some one else to be injured (even indirectly) while trying to help or save you, you are liable for any damages they or their family try to recover from you or your estate.

I don't know where Utah stands.



Kind of makes you think for a while, when you compare three concepts:
1. They can force you from your house to protect themselves and others.
2. They can illegally enter your home on a wrong-address no-knock warrant, and hold you liable when you try to defend your family from unannounced dark figures with guns.
3. Yet... they are not at all obligated to protect you from any danger or threat; and exercise that concept all the time in our courts.

Yes Frankenhollow, it appears that either way the individual cannot win. Here you show where the SCOTUS has stated that these groups have no obligation to protect citizens (though the oath for officers includes such a provision, or at least it did), and then again SCOTUS says that these agencies can force mandatory evacs on the citizenry. I call this at minimum, fickle! It is at least hypocritical especially if they are allowed to sue you even if you did nothing but sit in your basement to wait out a Tornado, if some rescue worker got hurt trying to dig out your house afterwards. Just insane and stupid.

[Cinhil]

So does anybody know what the law is in Utah?
The Saratogo Springs fire said "Mandatory Evacuation."
We see these occasional gas leaks, toxic spills, suicidal neighbor things, etc. where there are also what I think are typically called mandatory evacuations.
I have no problem with someone that chooses to not evacuate simply being on their own and the government (emts, police, firefighters, etc.) simply pretending the person that ignored their order doesn't exist. That makes sense to me.
I just want to know what the law is in Utah. What the consequences are in Utah if you choose to not evacuate?

I did a quick search of Utah laws using the term, "Evacuation," and their are laws in place to provide for evacuation however, I saw nothing which said that we must obey such an order. Therefore, I cannot say conclusively (IANAL) that we do not have to follow such an order in Utah however, it may be possible that we could be forced to comply if the order is from the Governor, or from the Guard.

[hawkwing]

I have heard from people who live in homes evacuated by the Wood Hollow fire that residents refused to leave and that the body found was one of the men who had refused to evacuate.

[Paul]

I have heard from people who live in homes evacuated by the Wood Hollow fire that residents refused to leave and that the body found was one of the men who had refused to evacuate.

Sad to hear that. However if someone wants to "go down with the ship" or take the risk I'm 100% fine with that. I just think it should be the individual's choice and not be FORCED on them by the government.
I still wish a cop or emergency services person or lawyer would chime in here and let us know what the law says and what the government officials can do if someone refuses to evacuate.

[hawkwing]

I have heard from people who live in homes evacuated by the Wood Hollow fire that residents refused to leave and that the body found was one of the men who had refused to evacuate.

Sad to hear that. However if someone wants to "go down with the ship" or take the risk I'm 100% fine with that. I just think it should be the individual's choice and not be FORCED on them by the government.
I still wish a cop or emergency services person or lawyer would chime in here and let us know what the law says and what the government officials can do if someone refuses to evacuate.

I have no problem with someone going down with the ship. I always like it when the stupid selectively remove themselves from the gene pool. The point is, in this case, the sheriff told these people that it was a mandatory evacuation, yet a handful decided they did not want to evacuate and they weren't arrested or removed by force.

Now this is just one anecdotal story, and I'm just as interested in what a lawyer or the state Attorney General would say 'mandatory evacuation' really means.

[DaKnife]

Perhaps they use "mandatory" versus "suggested/recommended", in order to get the point across that people really should get the heck out of dodge before the 100 foot high wall of fire sweeps through. We see case after case where people refuse to leave and the authorities say "Fine it is your choice, but we can and will not respond to any calls for help from you." The difference being that up-to and during a mandatory evac they will try to respond to calls for help to the best of their abilities, but that if you choose to stay after a mandatory evacuation has been ordered you are doing so at your own risk and should understand there will be NO assistance coming.

Thus it's terminology used to get people out, rather than something they actually intend to enforce via arrest/detainment or forcible eviction.

[etcollins]

Here it is Paul:

76-8-317. Refusal to comply with order to evacuate or other orders issued in a local or state emergency -- Penalties.
(1) A person may not refuse to comply with an order to evacuate issued under this chapter or refuse to comply with any other order issued by the governor in a state of an emergency under Section 63K-4-201 or by a chief executive officer in a local emergency under Section 63K-4-202, if notice of the order has been given to that person.
(2) A person who violates this section is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.

Amended by Chapter 370, 2010 General Session

[Paul]

Here it is Paul:

76-8-317. Refusal to comply with order to evacuate or other orders issued in a local or state emergency -- Penalties.
(1) A person may not refuse to comply with an order to evacuate issued under this chapter or refuse to comply with any other order issued by the governor in a state of an emergency under Section 63K-4-201 or by a chief executive officer in a local emergency under Section 63K-4-202, if notice of the order has been given to that person.
(2) A person who violates this section is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.

Amended by Chapter 370, 2010 General Session

Thanks! Thats what I was looking for. This is a legal penalty. My hunch is in situations with "Mandatory" evacuations the cops aren't going to be wasting their time arresting people that refuse to evacuate but I guess they could it looks like.

[etcollins]

Here's the description for the "Chief Executive Officer" refered to in the 76-8-317 code. My only experience was three years ago when we had the fire above Cliffside and Riverheights and the fire department made the call to evacuate some houses. Some people left and some people didn't. No one was forced to leave and bo one was arrested for not leaving.


63K-4-202. Authority of chief executive officers of political subdivisions -- Ordering of evacuations.
(1) (a) In order to protect life and property when a state of emergency or local emergency has been declared, the chief executive officer of each political subdivision of the state is authorized to:
(i) carry out, in the chief executive officer's jurisdiction, the measures as may be ordered by the governor under this chapter; and
(ii) take any additional measures the chief executive officer may consider necessary, subject to the limitations and provisions of this chapter.
(b) The chief executive officer may not take an action that is inconsistent with any order, rule, regulation, or action of the governor.
(2) When a state of emergency or local emergency is declared, the authority of the chief executive officer includes:
(a) utilizing all available resources of the political subdivision as reasonably necessary to manage a state of emergency or local emergency;
(b) employing measures and giving direction to local officers and agencies which are reasonable and necessary for the purpose of securing compliance with the provisions of this chapter and with orders, rules, and regulations made under this chapter;
(c) if necessary for the preservation of life, issuing an order for the evacuation of all or part of the population from any stricken or threatened area within the political subdivision;
(d) recommending routes, modes of transportation, and destinations in relation to an evacuation;
(e) suspending or limiting the sale, dispensing, or transportation of alcoholic beverages, explosives, and combustibles in relation to an evacuation, except that the chief executive officer may not restrict the lawful bearing of arms;
(f) controlling ingress and egress to and from a disaster area, controlling the movement of persons within a disaster area, and ordering the occupancy or evacuation of premises in a disaster area;
(g) clearing or removing debris or wreckage that may threaten public health, public safety, or private property from publicly or privately owned land or waters, except that where there is no immediate threat to public health or safety, the chief executive officer shall not exercise this authority in relation to privately owned land or waters unless:
(i) the owner authorizes the employees of designated local agencies to enter upon the private land or waters to perform any tasks necessary for the removal or clearance; and
(ii) the owner provides an unconditional authorization for removal of the debris or wreckage and agrees to indemnify the local and state government against any claim arising from the removal; and
(h) invoking the provisions of any mutual aid agreement entered into by the political subdivision.
(3) (a) If the chief executive is unavailable to issue an order for evacuation under Subsection (2)(c), the chief law enforcement officer having jurisdiction for the area may issue an urgent order for evacuation, for a period not to exceed 36 hours, if the order is necessary for the preservation of life.
(b) The chief executive officer may ratify, modify, or revoke the chief law enforcement officer's order.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Notice of an order or the ratification, modification, or revocation of an order issued under this section shall be:
(a) given to the persons within the jurisdiction by the most effective and reasonable means available; and
(b) filed in accordance with Subsection 63K-4-401(1).