Prisoners’ Rights in Utah

When someone breaks the law in Utah, they may lose certain freedoms however there are prisoners’ rights that are to be upheld during the legal proceedings as well as after those individuals have been incarcerated.

Human rights

Prisoners' Rights

Photo by: The Unnamed

Human rights, often referred to as inalienable rights are given to all men and women for simply being human. These rights are indivisible and universal. They do not differ depending on gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, or language. In the United States, these rights are protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Internationally, these rights are protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations which defines rights of freedom of religion, life, and opinion while protecting all from discrimination, slavery, torture. No one is to deprive another of any basic human rights unless done legally through a court of law.

Prisoners’ rights

Although human rights are permitted by all, when someone is placed in jail or prison, they end up losing the right to exercise some of their basic civil liberties for a time such as:

• The right to freedom;

• The right to vote;

• The right to bear arms;

• The right to serve on a jury; and sometimes

• The right to life (death penalty).

An incarcerated person may temporarily or permanently lose the right to enjoy some basic human rights however prior to their arrest as well as during court and even while incarcerated, they maintain certain rights and protections regardless of the crime for which they are accused. These protections of prisoners’ rights are explained in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eight Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

Fourth Amendment

Photo by: USAG-Humphreys

Photo by: USAG-Humphreys

The Fourth Amendment protects those suspected of a crime with:

• The right against unreasonable searched and seizures.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads: “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.”

Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment also protects those facing crimes with:

• The right to remain silent;

• The right against double jeopardy;

• The right to avoid self-incrimination;

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The Sixth Amendment

Photo by: J

Photo by: J

If someone is charged with a crime and is facing a court of law, the Sixth Amendment ensures they have:

• The right to a speedy trial;

• The right to a public trial;

• The right to an impartial jury;

• The right to cross examine a witness;

• The right to an attorney;

According to the Sixth Amendment, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

Eighth Amendment

When someone is incarcerated, they continue to have rights. These include:

• The right to a reasonable bail; and

• The right against cruel and unusual punishment.

The Eighth Amendment wraps up the civil liberties allowed to all defendants as well as a prisoners’ rights while incarcerated. It states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

Legal assistance to protect human rights

Photo by: Flazingo Photos

Photo by: Flazingo Photos

It is vital to those seeking legal counsel to understand their constitutional rights during an arrest as well as in court proceedings and prisoners’ rights if incarcerated. With the help of a qualified criminal defense attorney, these basic human rights will be upheld by law.

“Double Jeopardy” is Constitutional in a Dual Sovereignty Case

A trio of southern Utah residents are being charged twice for the same crime, otherwise known as double jeopardy, but since the charges stem from a dual sovereignty case it is considered constitutional.

Custody battle ends in murder

Photo by: Joe Gratz

Photo by: Joe Gratz

After years of custody battles between 30 year old David Heisler and 32 year old Kelley Marie Perry, Heisler was awarded sole custody of their 6 year old daughter Mariah. Less than two weeks later, prosecutors state Perry drove to Heisler’s residence with her friends 56 year old Francis (Frank) Lee McCard and 54 year old Tammy Renee Freeman. When Heisler answered the door, Perry and McCard physically assaulted him, dragged him from his house, then the trio drove him in his own vehicle to the Arizona desert where his lifeless body was discovered eight weeks later.

Utah, Arizona, and the Federal Government

Perry, McCard, and Freeman have been charged in Utah on felony kidnapping, theft, and burglary charges. Since the crime began in Utah and ended in Arizona, it is considered a dual sovereignty case. So not only do the three face charges in Utah, but the state of Arizona has filed their own charges including a repeated charge of felony kidnapping as well as first degree murder which could carry the death penalty. Not only are Utah and Arizona involved, McCard has been federally indicted and an indictment is pending for Perry as well. This means they may face even more repeated charges but at a federal level to boot.

Dual sovereignty case is not double jeopardy

dual sovereignty

Photo by: Ron Cogswell

While a dual sovereignty case may seem like a way to be repeatedly prosecuted for the same crime (double jeopardy), it does not violate a person’s Fifth Amendment rights to not “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb”. This is due to what is known as dual sovereignty doctrine, meaning that more than one state or court has authority over the case. Although occasionally one state or court will give up their jurisdiction as long as the defendant is facing charges somewhere. This is not always the case though and it is important to know when dual sovereignty may take place. Dual sovereignty due to a multi-jurisdictional case can occur for a few different reasons. Those can include:

• When the crime occurs in more than one state. For example, the David Heisler murder which took place in both Utah and Arizona. This is also a common for crimes such as drug and sex trafficking.

• If there are civil and criminal charges, as they are not handled by different courts.

• When there are both state and federal charges. Both the state and the federal government can press charges in some cases. When this happens, the federal charges do not dissolve the charges from the state. This can result in someone serving time in federal prison followed by state prison or vice versa.

• If the crime occurred in a different state from whence the defendant or victim resides. This is a common occurrence with crimes involving identity theft such as fraud.

• If more than one federal court has filed charges against the defendant.

Defense lawyer(s) needed

When it comes to a dual sovereignty case, a person facing charges needs more help than usual. It is important to speak with an experienced criminal defense attorney who can work to help eliminate dual sovereignty in a case or who is willing and able to operate across state lines or work side by side with legal representation in other states or federal courts where other or repeated charges may exist. Anyone facing charges that may involve more than one state or court should speak with a defense attorney immediately.

Constitutional Rights against Unreasonable Searches Not Maintained in Cases of Mistaken Identity

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens’ Constitutional Rights against unreasonable searches, however these rights are not maintained in cases of mistaken identity.

Mistaken Identity

Photo by: Ben Tesch

Photo by: Ben Tesch

Mistakes are known to happen, and sometimes when those blunders are made by law enforcement it can result in the wrong person being arrested. One of the areas where law enforcement has been known to slip-up occasionally is with mistaken identity. Police can often confuse an innocent person with a suspect due to issues such as address typos, similar names, or matching physical description. When this occurs, it can have prolonged emotional and even criminal repercussions.

Wrong man

When cases of mistaken identity are seen as the blunders by law enforcement that they are, those officers involved may end up temporarily or permanently removed from their position in the police department. They may also face civil lawsuits brought out by those they wrongly identified. Last year an Indiana man named DeShawn Franklin was awarded a whopping $18 settlement for a case of mistaken identity that took place four years prior. During the incident in question, officers entered the home Franklin lived in with his parents and went into the high school senior’s room where he lay asleep in his bed. After the startled teenager struggled due to the frightening scene, officers then punched him several times and hit him with a Taser gun before hauling him off to jail.

Mistaken Identity

Photo by: Lil Treyco

It turned out that Franklin, who matched the police’s description of a slender African-American man with dreadlocks, was not the person authorities were looking for. The man officers were searching for was Franklin’s older brother who wasn’t present at the time.

Arrested anyway

Sometimes an arrest based on mistaken identity doesn’t end with such profitable settlements and can still result in charges for the person arrested. This can happen if the person wrongfully detained ends up having warrants, being wanted for other crimes, or if illegal contraband is found in their possession during a search. This was the case for a Utah man named Wendell Navanick, who just so happened to share a name and birth year with another Utah man who had an outstanding warrant out for his arrest. When authorities located the warrantless Wendell Navanick, they ignored the man’s statement of being the wrong guy and booked him into the Salt Lake City Jail. During the booking procedure, authorities found drugs on Navanick and charged him with possession of a controlled substance. Although it was quickly discovered that authorities had not arrested the right person, Navanick was still charged with possession related to the drugs that were found on him during the booking process.

Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution 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 United States Courts adds however, that the Fourth Amendment “is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law.”

Unreasonable search loophole

Photo by: West Midlands Police

Photo by: West Midlands Police

When a victim of mistaken identity ends up with charges related to a search of their person or property because they were believed to be someone else, that search is not considered unconstitutional by law. In the case of the State of Utah v. Navanick, the defendant tried to claim his Fourth Amendment rights had been violated with the bookings search since it was “predicated upon an invalid arrest” however that claim for an appeal was shot down. The arrest was validated since the officers were found to have probable cause. “The only question is whether it was reasonable for the arresting officers to believe that the person arrested was the one sought.” (Gero v. Hanault). Anyone who is facing criminal charges related to a mistaken identity search is strongly urged to consult with a criminal defense attorney to ensure that all Constitutional Rights during criminal proceedings are protected.