Former South Salt Lake officer convicted of DUI asks judge to terminate his probation early
Nov 12, 2024 02:29PM ● By Bailey Chism
Arresting documents for officer Jimmie Anderson.
Last year, a high-ranking officer from the South Salt Lake Police Department, Lt. Jimmie Anderson, crashed his motorcycle while speeding under the influence. Despite the severity of the incident, Anderson was allowed to retire from the force without facing immediate departmental consequences.
Police Chief Jack Carruth and Deputy Chief Darren Carr visited Anderson in the hospital following the crash, with Carr handling the internal affairs investigation. Anderson was later convicted of DUI, receiving a five-day jail sentence, 18 months of supervised probation, and random urine testing.
On June 27, 2024, the Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Council suspended Anderson’s peace officer certification for two years, noting he was over three times the legal alcohol limit during the crash. Assistant Attorney General Marcus Yockey explained to the POST Council that DUI is a Category D offense, which typically results in a one-year suspension, but Anderson’s case was aggravated due to his high blood alcohol level and the involvement of an accident.
Yockey also noted that Anderson had resigned from the South Salt Lake Police Department before the internal investigation concluded and did not participate in the POST investigation. Anderson did not attend the disciplinary hearing, but his attorney, Nate Nelson, agreed with the two-year suspension recommendation. The POST Council unanimously voted to suspend Anderson’s certification.
Although Anderson’s suspension prevents him from working in law enforcement in Utah, he filed a petition with Saratoga Springs Justice Court Judge Ann Boyle, requesting early termination of his probation—despite not having completed one year. Judge Boyle swiftly denied the request, following an objection filed by Saratoga Springs Assistant City Attorney Conrad Hafen.
Criminal defense attorney Nathan Evershed, representing Anderson, argued that AMP Probation, responsible for supervising Anderson, had nothing left to oversee, with records showing Anderson’s compliance and clean urine tests.
However, Judge Boyle expressed dissatisfaction with AMP Probation’s handling of the case, stating, “I am so not impressed with the person who’s doing his probation that I would rather do it myself.”
She ordered Anderson’s supervision to be transferred to court probation, emphasizing that he still required oversight despite his progress.
Boyle added, “We’ll keep a close watch on you...but I am happy with what you’ve done
so far.” λ