Sheriff candidates say SB262 would limit unmarked-vehicle stops and harm public safety

Sheriff candidates at a Davis County Conservatives candidate forum on March 7 warned that Senate Bill 262 would undercut traffic enforcement and public safety by restricting the use of unmarked law-enforcement vehicles for stops.

Zach Van Emerick, a candidate with nearly 19 years in law enforcement, said the bill "is really bad for public safety" because it would prevent officers in unmarked vehicles from stopping cars for traffic infractions and would reduce the departments' ability to prevent high-speed crashes. "If any of you get pulled over by a police, call 911. If you don't think it's a police officer, call 911," he said, urging residents to contact legislators.

John Atkins, another sheriff candidate and longtime law-enforcement officer, described other practical and financial consequences: the bill’s definitions would require light bars on vehicles that currently operate without them and could force agencies to add equipment to leased vehicles. "If this goes into effect, we're going to have to spend a whole lot more money to put light bars on top of law enforcement vehicles," Atkins said, adding that the measure also changes which stops officers could legally make.

Andy Oblad, serving as chief deputy and running for sheriff, emphasized experience and the scope of the sheriff's office but focused his remarks on related public-safety bills rather than SB262 specifically. Oblad highlighted House Bill 113, which tightens penalties for 911 abuse, and House Bill 137, a $250,000 grant program to help law enforcement improve violent-crime clearance rates.

Supporters of SB262 say the measure addresses concerns about civilians being unsure whether vehicles are legitimate police cars; opponents at the forum said existing safeguards—calling 911 if in doubt—are not sufficient and that restricting unmarked stops would hamper enforcement of speed and safety infractions that cause many traffic deaths.

There was no formal vote at the forum. Candidates urged residents to contact state senators and representatives to express opinions on the bill and to follow committee hearings. The forum concluded with candidates asking attendees to evaluate candidates’ law-enforcement records and policy proposals before the caucus and signature deadlines.