Judge grants motion to dismiss in State v. Mark Allen, cites vague "public forum" term

A judge in a Salt Lake County courtroom granted a motion to dismiss the information against Mark Allen, finding that a confidentiality term barring statements in a "public forum" was too vague to be enforced and that filings are not, as a matter of law, equivalent to a public forum.

The ruling matters because the court treated the disputed language as a contractual restriction rather than a constitutional shield and concluded the phrase "public forum" was not defined clearly enough to bind Mr. Allen. The court dismissed the information without prejudice, meaning the state may refile if it believes the agreement has been violated.

Judge (unnamed in the record) said he had reviewed the parties' briefing and minute entries and was troubled by the absence of a written agreement, describing the contested language as vague and construing ambiguity against the drafting party. "I'm gonna grant the motion, to dismiss this information based on the following grounds," the judge said, citing contract vagueness and the longstanding principle that filings and pleadings are not equivalent to public fora under controlling case law.

Defense counsel, Mr. Farmley, argued the courthouse and court filings should not be treated as public fora in the First Amendment sense and asked the court to construe any ambiguity against the state. "In the First Amendment context, the courthouse is not a public forum," Mr. Farmley said, arguing the agreement could not reasonably be read to bar Mr. Allen from pursuing available remedies such as an expungement petition.

Greg Peterson, a prosecutor with the Utah Attorney General's Office, told the court the dismissal had been entered with conditions on the record and that Mr. Allen's subsequent expungement filing went beyond what was appropriate for an expungement petition. "He didn't even check the box because he knows he's not eligible," Peterson argued, characterizing the filing as an attempt to "torch" the agreement and supporting the state's decision to refile the charge after the alleged violation.

The judge distinguished between public access to court records and the legal definition of a public forum, noting that while filings are publicly accessible, the case law the court had reviewed did not support treating a filing as a "public forum" in the sense that would permit enforcing the challenged clause. The judge said the dismissal was entered "without prejudice" and warned Mr. Allen to be cautious in future public statements because the state could refile if it concluded the agreement had been violated.

After the ruling counsel offered to prepare a proposed written order memorializing the court's findings; the judge asked counsel to circulate the draft to opposing counsel for approval before signing. The court adjourned after the parties confirmed they would prepare and exchange the written order.