Archive for the ‘Constitutional Rights’ Category

State v Price Interlocutory Appeal

Utah Criminal Defense Blog, on the topic of  Constitutional Rights
0comment

In State v Price, Mr. Price filed an interlocutory appeal with the Utah Supreme Court based on the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress in a case where he (Price) is charged with causing death while driving with a measurable controlled substance and failing to yield the right-of-way.

What is an Interlocutory Appeal?

Most appeals happen only after a case is over. But, sometimes a trial judge makes important decisions that could affect the entire outcome of a case. For example, a judge’s decision either to suppress or admit certain evidence could determine whether a defendant takes a case to trial or seeks a plea deal. If a judge denies a defendant’s motion to suppress damaging evidence, the defendant might want to appeal before a jury hears the evidence. An appeal before the case is over is called an interlocutory appeal. The party seeking an interlocutory appeal must ask permission from the appellate court before the interlocutory appeal will be accepted.

What Lead to State v Price?

Price was involved in an auto accident that resulted in the death of another person. At the scene of the accident, Price failed a field sobriety test. The police got a search warrant for Price’s blood, which was tested for alcohol, cocaine, THC (marijuana), morphine and methamphetamine. His blood tested positive for THC, leading to his felony criminal charge.

Price argued that the blood evidence should be thrown out of court because the warrant only specified that his blood should be tested for alcohol – not THC. Price claimed that expanding the search to include THC violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The district court denied Price’s argument, finding that Price lost any reasonable expectation of privacy when his blood was tested for intoxicants because there was sufficient probable cause to support the issuance of the search warrant and the blood sample was lawfully taken from Price.

The Result

The Utah Supreme Court agreed with the district court’s denial of Price’s motion to suppress the blood evidence of THC. This means that the case of State v Price, which was on hold during the Supreme Court’s deliberations, can continue and the prosecution can present the blood evidence blood evidence to the jury. Because the damaging evidence against him was not suppressed, Price will now have to decide whether to take his chances with a jury or try to work out a plea bargain.

Hiring an Attorney

When you are in a legal bind, don’t wait to contact a Utah criminal defense attorney. An experienced, reputable attorney can provide you with a vigorous defense, including knowing when certain legal questions need to be raised. Don’t gamble with your freedom. Call a Utah criminal defense attorney today.

What to Expect Before the Utah Board of Pardons and Parole

Clayton Simms, Criminal Defense Attorney, on the topic of  Constitutional Rights, Utah Crime Related Videos
0comment

The following video explores what it is like for an inmate to appear before the Utah Board of Pardons and Parole at the Utah State Prison. The Board wants to hear that an inmate has accepted responsibility for the crimes they were convicted of. It is also helpful if an inmate has completed drug treatment, anger management classes or sex offender treatment. The Board also likes for an inmate to have a life plan, which includes employment or school and a drug free home.

Couple Sought in Utah Murders

Utah Criminal Defense Blog, on the topic of  Constitutional Rights, Criminal Defense Misc
0comment

A man and woman are on the loose after possibly murdering two Mt. Pleasant residents and allegedly shooting a West Wendover, Nevada woman in the back of the head.

Utah Murders

Mt. Pleasant Police discovered the Fullwood couple dead in their Utah home this past Saturday evening. They died of gunshot wounds, likely Thursday night or early Friday morning. Police believe that the Utah murders occurred as a result of a random robbery, in spite of the fact that the Fullwoods’ son is a police officer with the West Jordan Police Department.

Carjacking and Attempted Murder in Wendover

Investigators also believe that the couple is responsible for a carjacking that occurred early Saturday morning in Wendover. That carjacking ended with the victim escaping alone in her car, only to be shot in the back of the head by one of carjackers. The victim is in the hospital at this time. The couple was able to escape from the Nevada Highway Patrol and is still at large.

Always Keep Your Doors Locked

A Mt. Pleasant resident commented that people in their town are very friendly and not suspicious, and that residents frequently leave their doors open. Let us take the opportunity to remind you that it is important to always be aware of your surroundings and take the time to lock doors and windows behind you, even if you’re at home.

Contact A Utah Criminal Defense Attorney for Help

Utah murders are, of course, extremely serious crimes. Death penalty cases are rare, but still occur. If you are being investigated for a crime, don’t take any chances; contact a Utah criminal defense attorney right away. You need the advice a respected attorney has to offer.

You are not required to discuss your case with the police first. You have the right to talk to an attorney, and you should take full advantage of that opportunity. You may have made past mistakes, but you still deserve the help an experienced criminal defense attorney can provide you. Make that important phone call today.

Mouse Shooting Ends in Rape Arrest

Utah Criminal Defense Blog, on the topic of  Constitutional Rights
0comment

An arrest in Taylorsville for rape of a child was the end to what began with a man shooting at a mouse. If that sounds bizarre to you, you’re probably not alone.

Photo: Ernst Vikne

Tuesday was a busy night for law enforcement and a medical crew at Paul Kunzler’s Taylorsville home. The events began when one of Kunzler’s three roommates tried to shoot a mouse in the kitchen. Instead of hitting the mouse, a shot went through the wall and struck another roommate who was in the bathroom.

A medical crew and police arrived and the shooting victim was taken to the hospital. While at the home, police discovered a 13-year-old girl hiding in a closet. Reportedly, the girl and Kunzler had been having a sexual relationship for the past four months. Kunzler is currently in jail while being investigated for rape of a child, sodomy of a child and sexual abuse of a child.

Rape of a child is a first-degree felony charge, punishable by 25 years to life in prison. If certain other conditions are met, the person charged could face life in prison without the possibility of parole. Rape of a child is one of the kinds of first-degree felonies where imprisonment is mandatory. Sodomy on a child can result in similar charges to rape of a child; imprisonment is also mandatory. Sexual abuse of a child is generally a second-degree felony, but aggravated sexual abuse of a child would raise the charge to a first-degree felony.

Some basic rules to follow if you are arrested are: don’t talk to police and contact a Utah criminal defense attorney. You are under no obligation to try to explain your situation to law enforcement, and as you will likely be told, anything you say can be used against you. That means exactly what you think it does.

Don’t wait to get legal help if you are facing any criminal charges. You owe it to yourself to have an experienced criminal defense attorney on your side.

Right to Bail in Utah

Utah Criminal Defense Blog, on the topic of  Constitutional Rights
0comment

Under regular circumstances, people in Utah who are arrested for a criminal offense shall be admitted to bail, according to Utah law. There are a few exceptions, however, including when a person:

• is charged with a capital felony and the court finds there is enough evidence to support the charge
• commits a felony while on probation or parole or while free on bail awaiting trial on a previous felony charge, and the court finds substantial evidence is available to support the new felony charge
• is charged with a felony that is backed up by evidence, and the court finds evidence that releasing the person would cause serious danger to others or is likely to flee the court’s jurisdiction
• was released on bail, and the court is presented with substantial evidence that the individual violated a condition of their release

The court is entitled to determine whether a person can be released on his own recognizance or is required to post a monetary bail. The court takes into account the following when deciding on the type of release:

• that the accused will appear in court when required
• that the integrity of the court process will be intact
• preventing contact between the accused and any witnesses, if appropriate
• the safety of the public

In a situation involving violation of a criminal protective order, the person arrested may not be released prior to his first appearance in court.

If you are arrested, it is time to hire a qualified Utah criminal defense attorney. In matters of law, you need the expertise and experience a criminal defense attorney can provide. Don’t discuss the charges or any other aspects of your situation with the police. Use your rights, and contact a Utah criminal defense attorney who has a reputation for defending his clients with vigor.

Can’t Mention Gang Affiliation Unless Relevant

Utah Attorney, Brooke Winters, on the topic of  Constitutional Rights, Criminal Defense Misc, Legal Process
0comment

Trials are the stage where prosecutors and defense attorney’s ‘put on’ their play.  Although this may seem a negative reference to the Utah justice system, the reality is that each side will strategically present their case in a light most favorable to their client.  However, there are rules and the rules must be followed.

With the heavy presence of gang activity and affiliation, it is very tempting for a prosecutor to inject evidence of gang affiliation into trials even if that evidence has no relevance on the offense being tried.  Evidence of this nature is a no-no.  In Dawson v. Delaware, 503 U.S. 159 (1992), the United States Supreme Court ruled in a capitol murder case that the prosecutor had violated the defendant’s First Amendment right to association by referencing the defendant’s association with the Aryan Brotherhood during sentencing.  The Court went on to say that evidence of gang affiliation is only admissible if it has some ‘relevance’ to the case at hand.  Id. at 166.  Simply referencing gang affiliation to inflame the jury is not allowed.  Although Dawson involved capitol homicide, the reasoning applies to any case where gang affiliation has no bearing on the issues being tried.

Crime Victims Rights in Utah

Utah Attorney, Brooke Winters, on the topic of  Constitutional Rights, Criminal Defense Misc, Legal Process, Question, Utah Law
0comment

It should come as no surprise to learn that crime victims have rights and those rights are protected under the Utah Constitution which provides in pertinent part:

(a) To be treated with fairness, respect, and dignity, and to be free from harassment and abuse throughout the criminal justice process;
(b) Upon request, to be informed of, be present at, and to be heard at important criminal justice hearings related to the victim, either I person or through a lawful representative, once a criminal information or indictment charging a crime has been publicly filed in court; and
(c) To have a sentencing judge, for the purpose of imposing and appropriate sentence, receive and consider, without evidentiary limitation, reliable information concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person convicted of an offense except that this subsection does not apply to capital cases or situations involving privileges.

Although there are state and federal statutes protecting victims’ rights including state constitutional amendments, an amendment to the United States Constitution extending constitutional rights to victims has never been passed putting victims at a distinct disadvantage in the system. Currently, because victims’ rights are not guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution whereas defendant’s rights are, victims are not on equal footing with defendants as far as enforcing their rights and being provided with appropriate and meaningful remedies.

First, even though the Crime Victims’ Rights Act provides for victims’ rights enforcement through a writ of mandamus there is currently a four district split as to the appropriate standard of review leaving victims’ without an adequate remedy thereby compromising their rights. Second, none of the state statutory rights extended to victims or the Crime Victims’ Rights Act provides for civil damages as an appropriate remedy for rights violations. Although there is a question as to who would pay in the event civil damages were an option or if this is even an appropriate remedy for enforcement, it would at least provide some teeth to a statutory system of rights which might be described as un-enforceable due to a lack of available remedies. It is clear, just based on these two examples, that enforcing victims’ rights is a challenge courts are currently facing. However, within the last few years, Utah had enacted legislation which provides a remedy for victims whose rights have been violated by allowing for a “do-over” provision. Under, Utah Code Annotated 77-38-11, that as long as a victim does not unduly delay in seeking to protect their rights and was not voluntarily absent from relevant proceedings, the court must first determine whether there was a violation of rights and can proceed to determine the appropriate remedy such actions as are necessary to provide to the victim the right to which the victim was entitled which may include reopening previously held proceedings. Obviously this is a step in the right direction and will hopefully will provide a meaningful remedy should rights be violated.

Although the area of crime victim’s rights is still evolving, there are services in Utah where victims can get assistance.

• Utah Crime Victim Reparations – They assist victims, through financial compensation, to help them get their lives back on track which includes medical and dental care, mental health counseling, funeral and burial costs, cost of relocation if necessary, lost wages, loss of support to defendants and child care.
• The Department of Health and Human Services – Services include a domestic violence program through Child and Family Services and the Utah Domestic Violence Counsel which offers assistance through a 24/7 hotline which when called can offer victims free help including counseling and shelter programs.
• Utah Crime Victims Legal Clinic – Serves as a contact point, including a website, which provides victims with information outlining their rights and contact information for crime victim service agencies throughout the state including websites, addresses and phone numbers for these agencies. In addition being a great resource for victims, the Crime Victims Legal Clinic provides free legal representation to crime victims whose rights are at issue. This is possible through pro bono attorneys and law students dedicated to protecting victims’ rights.

Utah Law Enforcement Not Allowed to Detain and Run I.D. Check Without Evidence of a Crime

Utah Attorney, Brooke Winters, on the topic of  Constitutional Rights, Criminal Defense Misc, Dealing with Police, Evidence, Utah Law
0comment

There are three constitutionally permissible encounters between citizens and police:

• An officer can approach a citizen at any time and ask questions so long as the citizen is not detained against his/her will
• An officer may seize a person but must have reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been or is about to be committed and the detention must be temporary and not last longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop;
• An officer may arrest someone if the officer has probable cause to believe an offense has been or is currently being committed.

In a level two encounter the officer must be able to articulate or say why he has formed the objective impression that a crime has been or is about to be committed.

In State v. Chism, 107 P.3d 706 (Utah App 2005) an officer pulled defendant’s vehicle over for a traffic violation. On approaching the vehicle, the officer smelled tobacco smoke coming from the vehicle and observed two packs of cigarettes on the dashboard and several vehicle occupants who did not appear to be old enough to possess tobacco. The focus of the investigation shifted away from a traffic stop to investigating whether the occupants of the vehicle were old enough to possess tobacco. All occupants, including defendant Chism, produced identification. Chism’s driver’s license showed his age as 19 years old. The legal age to possess tobacco in Utah is 18. Without articulating his suspicions, the officer detained the occupants of the vehicle while he ran computer checks on their I.D.

The court ruled that the burden was on the state to support the officer’s suspicion that the defendant was underage to possess tobacco. Accordingly the officer’s detention to further investigate the validity of his identification and ultimate search and arrest were all unlawful. Id.

Are Utah Prosecutors Required to Disclose the Identity of a Confidential Informant?

Utah Attorney, Brooke Winters, on the topic of  Constitutional Rights, Criminal Defense Misc, Evidence, Question, Utah Court, Utah Law
0comment

In a nutshell…maybe. A confidential informant or C.I. is someone who assists law enforcement by providing useful information used in the arrest and conviction of another person. The informant can act in a number of ways either by acting as a concerned citizen without the motivation of personal gain while other C.I.’s provide information in exchange for money or for perhaps leniency in cases where they are the defendant.

In Utah, the court can order prosecution to release the identity of the C.I. if it would be relevant or helpful or essential to ensuring the defendant receive a fair trial. The court must weigh relevant factors in making a determination such as potential hazards to safety of parties involved, public interest in protecting the flow of informant information and the defendant’s right to prepare his defense. Generally, the identity of an informant who was a witness to the crime with which the accused is charged or who was an actual participant in the commission of the alleged crime is subject to an order of disclosure.  State v. Forsbee, 611 P.2d 1222 (Utah 1980).

If police or prosecutors do not want to reveal the identity of the C.I. they will have to go to great lengths to show the court that revealing his identity will jeopardize his/her safety or make the C.I. unusable in the future. In the end it is at the court’s discretion and the judge will have to balance the utility of keeping the C.I.’s identify a secret against the constitution rights of the accused.

Search Warrant in Utah

Utah Criminal Defense Blog, on the topic of  Constitutional Rights, Question
0comment

When a search warrant or administrative warrant is served upon a person in Utah, there are some procedures that must be followed.

Administrative Checkpoint for Vehicles

Photo: Karl Baron

A vehicle may be stopped and the occupants detained when a police officer:

(1) is following the requirements of a search warrant or arrest warrant;
(2) has probable cause to arrest or search;
(3) has reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has occurred or is occurring;
(4) is acting under emergency circumstances; or
(5) is acting pursuant to duly authorized administrative traffic checkpoint authority granted by a magistrate.

Law enforcement may not display a sign that notifies motorists of an administrative traffic checkpoint unless the checkpoint has been approved by a magistrate.

Put Your Brakes On

If you decide to ignore an administrative checkpoint by blazing on past it, you will be guilty of a class B misdemeanor.

Officer-Requested Assistance

When a police officer serves a search warrant, he may request the help of other people in performing the search.

Use of Force in Executing Search Warrant

There are times when law enforcement can use reasonably necessary force in their efforts to serve a search warrant and enter the premises. If a police officer gives notice of his authority and purpose, and he is not responded to promptly, he may use appropriate force to conduct the business of the search warrant. Also, a magistrate may give officers permission to enter a location without notice of their authority and purpose.

Searches on Parolees

You may not know that before a person can be paroled, he must sign an agreement that he will allow himself or his property to be searched, without a warrant, at any time by a parole officer or police officer. Theoretically, this is not to be used as a form of harassment.

Questions Regarding a Search

Don’t hesitate to contact an attorney if you believe you’ve been involved in an inappropriate search by police. Law enforcement has rules to follow, and they need to be held accountable to those rules. You don’t have to just hope that the police do their job the right way. A Utah criminal defense attorney can help you with your legal questions and problems.