Ayala v. Unified Police: When a Police Car Runs a Red Light in Utah

Short answer: In Ayala v. Unified Police Department, the Utah Court of Appeals revived a lawsuit by two people whose truck was hit by a police officer who entered an intersection against a red light during an emergency response. Government immunity for emergency-vehicle crashes applies only if the officer drove the way Utah’s emergency vehicle statute requires, and the government has to prove that. Showing the lights were flashing was not enough.

Many people assume that if a police car had its lights on, there is no claim. This decision shows why that is not automatically true, and what the government has to prove before an emergency-vehicle crash case can be thrown out.

What Happened

The case is Ayala v. Unified Police Department of Greater Salt Lake, 2026 UT App 139, decided September 11, 2026. On an August afternoon in 2020, Armando Ayala was driving east on 7000 South in West Jordan with Ashlie Mauger as his passenger. Unified Police officers were helping another agency with a pursuit, trying to get ahead of a fleeing car to lay spike strips.

At 1300 West, one officer turned through the intersection with lights and siren on. A second officer slowed “to a creep” and went through. Ayala, who had a green light, believed the way was clear and pulled forward. A third officer, following directly behind the second, entered against the red light and hit Ayala’s truck. His emergency lights were on. He said his siren was on too; Ayala and Mauger said they never heard it. A gas station security camera recorded the crash, without sound.

The officer’s department later found that he had violated its emergency driving policy, which requires officers to slow to no more than 10 mph before going through a red light and to make sure cross traffic has yielded. Even so, the trial court granted summary judgment to the department in a one-sentence ruling, finding it immune.

The Immunity Rule for Emergency Vehicles

Under the Governmental Immunity Act, a government entity keeps its immunity for injuries arising from “the operation of an emergency vehicle, while being driven in accordance with the requirements of Section 41-6a-212” (Utah Code 63G-7-201(4)(r)).

Section 41-6a-212 lets an emergency driver responding to a call proceed past a red light, “but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation.” For a driver not involved in a pursuit, that privilege applies only when the driver sounds an audible signal meeting Section 41-6a-1625 or uses emergency lights that meet state rules and are visible from the front. In a pursuit, both lights and siren are required, along with pursuit training. And in either case, the privileges do not relieve the driver “of the duty to act as a reasonably prudent emergency vehicle operator under the circumstances.”

So immunity is not automatic. The question is whether the officer actually met each of those conditions. Our post on crashes with government vehicles covers the broader rules for claims against public entities.

What the Court Held

The Court of Appeals reversed, finding several genuine disputes that a court could not resolve on summary judgment.

The government carries the burden. Immunity is an affirmative defense, so the department had to produce evidence supporting each element before the burden shifted to the injured people.

“Lights on” is not the same as “lights that comply.” The video showed the lights flashing, but nothing in the record showed that they met the equipment standards the statute refers to. Relying on a 2010 Utah Supreme Court decision, Clegg v. Wasatch County, the court said it is not enough to show that an officer’s lights or siren were activated; the government must also show they were adequate under the statute.

The siren was disputed, and unproven. The officer said his siren was on; Ayala and Mauger said they did not hear it; the officer ahead of him said he could not tell over his own siren. Beyond that, the department never showed the siren met the statutory standard of being audible under normal conditions from at least 500 feet (Utah Code 41-6a-1625(4)(a)).

Whether he slowed down enough was a fact question. A large dump truck blocked Ayala’s view of southbound traffic, and the officer admitted stopped vehicles blocked his view of eastbound traffic. With that blind spot, a jury could find he needed to slow more than he did.

Department policy is relevant. The department argued its internal policy had nothing to do with immunity. The court disagreed, repeating Clegg‘s rule that a policy violation “will be relevant to the question of negligence, but will not necessarily be determinative.” The department’s own finding that the officer broke its policy ruled out a conclusion that he drove reasonably as a matter of law. The court added that the parts of the disciplinary report imposing discipline may be kept out under the evidence rule on after-the-fact remedial measures, but the investigative findings need not be.

The department also argued Ayala should have yielded. Drivers must yield to an emergency vehicle using audible or visual signals under the statutes (Utah Code 41-6a-904(1)), but since the department had not shown its signals met those statutes, that argument failed too.

Limits of the Ruling

• No one has been found at fault. The decision sends the case back for further proceedings. A jury, or a later ruling on a fuller record, could still find for the department.
• The pursuit question was left open. The department argued that helping another agency’s pursuit did not make the officer “involved in a vehicle pursuit,” which would have required both lights and siren. The court assumed that point without deciding it.
• Fleeing suspects are treated differently. The statute says a marked emergency vehicle owes no duty of care under that subsection to a fleeing suspect or, with limited exceptions, a person in the suspect’s car (41-6a-212(7)(b)). Ayala and Mauger were bystanders, so that rule did not apply.
• Later history. The decision is very recent. As of September 2026, we found no later ruling changing it, but a Court of Appeals decision can be reviewed by the Utah Supreme Court.

What This Means If You Were Hit by an Emergency Vehicle

1. Do not assume flashing lights end the case. The government must prove every condition for immunity.
2. Look for independent video. A gas station camera recorded this crash. Businesses often record over footage within days, so ask quickly and in writing.
3. Write down whether you heard a siren and what blocked your view. Witnesses who heard or did not hear a siren matter.
4. Request the crash report, and ask about body camera and dash camera footage. See how to get a Utah police crash report.
5. Mark the deadline. A claim against a government entity is barred unless a written notice of claim is filed within one year (Utah Code 63G-7-402), and the lawsuit generally must follow within two years after the claim arises (Utah Code 63G-7-403).

For how right of way is proved when a signal is involved, see red-light and intersection crashes in Utah.

Talk to a Utah Car Accident Attorney

Emergency-vehicle cases are decided on records the government holds: equipment specifications, video, dispatch records and internal reviews. We can help identify those records and meet the notice deadline.

Hurt in Utah? Call (801) 921-5134 or send us your case for a free consultation. No attorney fees unless we win. Hablamos Español.