Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Transportation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Senate amends and approves road-closure bill to clarify RS 2477 applicability

Utah State Senate · March 14, 2019
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After floor amendment adding explicit reference to RS 2477 rights-of-way, the Senate passed first substitute House Bill 179 to make certain unlawful road closures a Class C misdemeanor; supporters said the change protects public roads against vigilante closures while preserving court processes for disputed private ways.

The Utah Senate adopted an amendment clarifying that the road-closure prohibition in House Bill 179 applies to RS 2477 rights-of-way and then passed the bill on March 11.

Senator Hankins presented the bill, describing its aim to criminalize knowingly placing barricades or otherwise closing certain public roads and RS 2477 rights-of-way. Senators raised concerns about private landowners and longstanding informal use of routes that might be litigated as private or public; Senator Hilliard and others asked whether the bill could inadvertently criminalize landowners defending private driveways.

The floor amendment inserted an explicit RS 2477 citation to clarify that the statute targets closures of recognized public rights-of-way rather than ordinary private gates. "That has to be clarified by legal action," Senator Hilliard said, urging that disputed status remain a matter for courts. Senator Andrick said the bill addresses a form of "vigilante action" in which organizations or individuals shut roads without proper authority. "This is somewhat of a vigilante action," he said, arguing the change was needed to ensure only duly designated law enforcement can close roads.

The amended bill passed by roll call (21 yeas, 2 nays, 6 absent). The Senate record shows the sponsor planned to work with House sponsors and stakeholders to refine language where necessary. The bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.