Department of Public Safety Utah Highway Patrol

Daniel Fuhr Colonel

GARY R. HERBERT Governor GREG BELL Lieutenant Governor

Utah Highway Patrol

Gardner Statement On February 17th, 2011 Trooper Bryan Gardner responded to a motor vehicle crash involving a single vehicle with two occupants in the vehicle. The driver was intoxicated and ultimately arrested for DUI. The driver claimed the passenger had hit her in the head and grabbed the steering wheel forcing the car off of the road to the right. A witness to the scene made the statement that the driver claimed that the passenger hit her and grabbed the steering wheel. The passenger of the vehicle was Mr. Geng. Trooper Gardner listed in his report that Mr. Geng had admitted to hitting the passenger, but nothing in the report listed Geng as admitting to grabbing the steering wheel. June of 2013, Trooper Gardner was called to testify in the case of State of Utah vs. Mr. Geng. Unprepared for court, Trooper Gardner testified some 2.4 years after the incident that Mr. Geng admitted to both hitting the driver and grabbing the steering wheel of the vehicle. Relying on memory, rather than consulting the video, or referring to the police report, Gardners testimony was inaccurate. As the Defense counsel pointed out, the self admissions of Geng were not recorded on video camera and did not occur. Trooper Gardner admits to being incorrect. Trooper Gardner also admits that he based his findings on the testimony of witnesses/victims rather than Geng's self admission. The Judge dismissed the case and stated Gardners 5th Amendment right. Shortly after the court proceedings, the Salt Lake City Attorneys office contacted a UHP court liaison and expressed concerns with the lack of preparation on Trooper Gardner's part. This information was sent to Gardner's immediate supervisor who counseled with Gardner on proper courtroom preparation and testimony. The supervisor believed that re-training was sufficient to insure this issue did not occur in the future. The UHP is also investigating the reason behind the incorrect statements and why proper preparation did not take place. The Utah Highway Patrol has scheduled a meeting with the Salt Lake City Prosecutors office to discuss this case, and the ramifications of the Troopers testimony. At this time, no declarations have been made by the Prosecutors office or the Judge as to the credibility of Trooper Gardner, (as was the findings in a recent high profile case which the Judge and Prosecutors offices made declarations specific to an individual Troopers credibility and truthfulness).

The Utah Highway Patrol requires all Troopers to be accurate in their reports and to be prepared for court proceedings, especially when the case is 2.4 years old. Troopers understand that they must be prepared when going to court to include viewing dash cam video, reviewing reports, witness statements and consulting with the prosecutors. In this case that did not occur. This was a failure on the part of the Utah Highway Patrol and we will continue to express to all State Troopers the importance of court preparation and accurate reporting.