Archive for the ‘Crimes’ Category

Threat of Terrorism in Utah

Utah Criminal Defense Blog, on the topic of  Crimes
0comment

With the events at the Boston Marathon today on many people’s minds, it’s a good time to review terrorism and what penalties apply to folks who threaten terrorism in Utah.

Photo: The Consumerist

Photo: The Consumerist

If someone threatens to commit any act of terrorism in Utah, he may have more to contend with than just Utah authorities. The odds are good that federal law enforcement would descend on the state rather quickly—especially if the threat is carried out.

Threatening Terrorism is a Crime

It is a crime to threaten to commit a terrorist act. If you threaten to commit any offense involving bodily injury, death or substantial property damage

• By using a weapon of mass destruction or
• By using a hoax weapon of mass destruction or

if you try to

• Coerce or intimidate a civilian population or to influence or affect the conduct of government or a unit of government
• Prevent or interrupt the occupation of a building where the public has access (or a portion of the building) or a facility or vehicle of public transportation or
• Cause action of any nature by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies

you may be guilty of threat of terrorism. Depending on which part of the law you break, you may be charged with a second degree or third degree felony.

In case you think that it’s okay to make a terrorist threat that you don’t try to carry out or aren’t able to carry out, think again. You can’t use that as a defense. Also, if you threaten terrorism and carry out your plan, you can be punished for both the threat and any additional crime that you commit.

You also will be required to reimburse any agencies involved for their expenses and losses incurred as a result of your actions.

Consult with a Utah Criminal Defense Attorney

We highly recommend that you avoid making terrorist threats and carrying them through. Nevertheless, we are here to help anyone accused of a crime—no matter how serious—in Utah.

Talk to an experienced Utah criminal defense attorney right away if you’ve been arrested or are being investigated for any crime. It’s never too late to get the legal help you need and deserve.

Utah Man Facing 38 Felonies Related to Teen Sex

Utah Criminal Defense Blog, on the topic of  Crimes
0comment

Kenneth Bond is accused of dozens of felonies relating to his alleged involvement in forcing teenage girls to have sex with him and other men.

Photo: Adam Russell

Photo: Adam Russell

Most of the teen sex events Bond is accused of participating in or spearheading took place over several months during the first half of 2011. At times the defendant supposedly would bring the two teenagers to his home and force, coerce or threaten them into having sex with him or other men. Bond allegedly also bought the girls cell phones and other gifts.

Some of the charges against Bond include: object rape, aggravated sexual assault, unlawful sexual activity with a minor and aggravated exploitation of a prostitute. The defendant has pleaded not guilty to all charges and denies any sexual contact with them.

The presumed reason for the exploitation of a prostitute charge is that Bond allegedly paid the men to have sex with the girls so that he could watch from another room. Exploiting prostitution is a third degree felony that can be defined as:

• Procuring an inmate for a house of prostitution
• Encouraging, inducing or otherwise purposefully causing someone to become or remain a prostitute
• Transporting someone into or within Utah in order to have them become a prostitute
• Being a pimp or madam

Bond is currently serving a prison sentence on an unrelated charge. If found guilty of any of the felonies he’s up against, Bond could possibly spend the rest of his life in prison.

Keep in mind that you don’t have to be charged with engaging in teen sex in order to benefit from the services of a top Utah criminal defense attorney. Even a misdemeanor charge warrants consulting with an attorney.

Regardless of your culpability, talk to an experienced Utah criminal defense attorney today. It may be the best decision you’ll ever make.

Sandy City Water and Bike Violations

Utah Criminal Defense Blog, on the topic of  Crimes, Humor
0comment

If you live or travel within the boundaries of Sandy City, we want to make sure you’re aware of the following water and bike violations—because someone must have thought it necessary that these vital laws be addressed.

Photo: Don LaVange

Photo: Don LaVange

Water Violations

It is against the law in Sandy City to take water out of turn or injure water facilities. We’ll explain in more detail exactly what these violations mean.

The law states that any person who willfully turns or uses the water (or any part thereof) of any

• Canal
• Ditch
• Pipeline
• Reservoir

except at a time specifically allotted to that person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor. It’s also a class B misdemeanor to willfully use more water than you’re allowed.

You also cannot change the flow of water designated for irrigation or other useful purposes unless you’re authorized. Additionally, don’t willfully and maliciously break or injure any

• Dam
• Canal
• Pipeline
• Water gate
• Ditch

or other method of transporting water unless you want to be charged with a class B misdemeanor.

Bicycle Violations—Parking on Sidewalks or Roadways

First, we thought it important to tell you what is allowed when parking your bicycle. It’s okay to park a bike:

• On a sidewalk, unless prohibited or restricted by an official traffic control device
• On a sidewalk as long as it doesn’t get in the way of pedestrians or other traffic
• At any angle to the curb or edge on a roadway anywhere parking is allowed
• By other bikes near the side of a roadway where parking is allowed

Make sure you don’t park your bicycle on a roadway where it will get in the way of a legally parked auto. Besides being against the law, your bike might get run over.

Talk to a Utah criminal defense attorney if you’ve been charged with breaking any of these (or other) laws. It’s better to have a legal expert on your side than to try and fight a criminal charge on your own.

Cockfighting to Become A Felony In Utah. Thankfully Human v. Human Fights are Still Misdemeanors.

Clayton Simms, Criminal Defense Attorney, on the topic of  Crimes, Utah Law, Utah Legal Definition
0comment

A bill that would make Cockfighting a Felony passed the Utah State Senate today. Luckily the Utah State legislature keep fighting between humans at a Misdemeanor level. (Participation in an ultimate fighting Match, Utah Code Annotated 76-9-705). Under Utah law, two human combatants who “use a combination of boxing, kicking, wrestling, hitting, punching or … biting” are only guilty of a Class A Misdemeanor (U.C.A. 76-9-705). Human combat is only be punishable for up to one year in jail. Fortunately, the Utah State Legislature recognizes that game fowl battles or cockfighting is more important than fighting between humans. The punishment for cockfighting is 5 times that of Human fighting (Participation in Ultimate Fighting Match). So remember if you “cause a game fowl to fight with or injure another game fowl” this behavior would be a 3rd Degree Felony punishable up to 5 years at the Utah State Prison (if Senate Bill 52 passes). However, combat between humans would only be punishable for up to one year in jail. A full copy of the Cockfighting/Game Fowl Fighting Bill is found below:

GAME FOWL FIGHTING AMENDMENTS

2013 GENERAL SESSION

STATE OF UTAH

Chief Sponsor: Gene Davis

House Sponsor: Johnny Anderson

6
7 LONG TITLE
8 General Description:
9 This bill modifies the Criminal Code regarding the fighting of animals.
10 Highlighted Provisions:
11 This bill:
12 . provides that game fowl fighting and specified acts related to game fowl fighting are
13 third degree felonies;
14 . provides that being present at a game fowl fight is a class B misdemeanor; and
15 . provides definitions and cross references.
16 Money Appropriated in this Bill:
17 None
18 Other Special Clauses:
19 None
20 Utah Code Sections Affected:
21 AMENDS:
22 76-9-301, as last amended by Laws of Utah 2008, Chapter 292
23 76-9-301.5, as last amended by Laws of Utah 2008, Chapter 292
24 ENACTS:
25 76-9-301.3, Utah Code Annotated 1953
26
27 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah:
28 Section 1. Section 76-9-301 is amended to read:
29 76-9-301. Cruelty to animals.
30 (1) As used in this section:
31 (a) (i) “Abandon” means to intentionally deposit, leave, or drop off any live animal:
32 (A) without providing for the care of that animal, in accordance with accepted animal
33 husbandry practices or customary farming practices; or
34 (B) in a situation where conditions present an immediate, direct, and serious threat to
35 the life, safety, or health of the animal.
36 (ii) “Abandon” does not include returning wildlife to its natural habitat.
37 (b) (i) “Animal” means, except as provided in Subsection (1)(b)(ii), a live, nonhuman
38 vertebrate creature.
39 (ii) “Animal” does not include:
40 (A) a live, nonhuman vertebrate creature, if:
41 (I) the conduct toward the creature, and the care provided to the creature, is in
42 accordance with accepted animal husbandry practices; and
43 (II) the creature is:
44 (Aa) owned or kept by a zoological park that is accredited by, or a member of, the
45 American Zoo and Aquarium Association;
46 (Bb) kept, owned, or used for the purpose of training hunting dogs or raptors; or
47 (Cc) temporarily in the state as part of a circus or traveling exhibitor licensed by the
48 United States Department of Agriculture under 7 U.S.C. 2133;
49 (B) a live, nonhuman vertebrate creature that is owned, kept, or used for rodeo
50 purposes, if the conduct toward the creature, and the care provided to the creature, is in
51 accordance with accepted rodeo practices;
52 (C) livestock, if the conduct toward the creature, and the care provided to the creature,
53 is in accordance with accepted animal husbandry practices or customary farming practices; or
54 (D) wildlife, as defined in Section 23-13-2 , including protected and unprotected
55 wildlife, if the conduct toward the wildlife is in accordance with lawful hunting, fishing, or
56 trapping practices or other lawful practices.
57 (c) “Companion animal” means an animal that is a domestic dog or a domestic cat.
58 (d) “Custody” means ownership, possession, or control over an animal.
59 (e) “Legal privilege” means an act that:
60 (i) is authorized by state law, including Division of Wildlife Resources rules; and
61 (ii) is not in violation of a local ordinance.
62 (f) “Livestock” means:
63 (i) domesticated:
64 (A) cattle;
65 (B) sheep;
66 (C) goats;
67 (D) turkeys;
68 (E) swine;
69 (F) equines;
70 (G) camelidae;
71 (H) ratites; or
72 (I) bison;
73 (ii) domesticated elk, as defined in Section 4-39-102 ; or
74 (iii) any domesticated nonhuman vertebrate creature, domestic furbearer, or domestic
75 poultry, raised, kept, or used for agricultural purposes.
76 (g) “Necessary food, water, care, or shelter” means the following, taking into account
77 the species, age, and physical condition of the animal:
78 (i) appropriate and essential food and water;
79 (ii) adequate protection, including appropriate shelter, against extreme weather
80 conditions; and
81 (iii) other essential care.
82 (h) “Torture” means intentionally or knowingly causing or inflicting extreme physical
83 pain to an animal in an especially heinous, atrocious, cruel, or exceptionally depraved manner.
84 (2) Except as provided in Subsection (4) or (6), a person is guilty of cruelty to an
85 animal if the person, without legal privilege to do so, intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or
86 with criminal negligence:
87 (a) fails to provide necessary food, water, care, or shelter for an animal in the person’s
88 custody;
89 (b) abandons an animal in the person’s custody;
90 (c) injures an animal;
91 (d) causes any animal, not including a dog or a game fowl, to fight with another animal
92 of like kind for amusement or gain; or
93 (e) causes any animal, including a dog or a game fowl, to fight with a different kind of
94 animal or creature for amusement or gain.
95 (3) Except as provided in Section 76-9-301.7 , a violation of Subsection (2) is:
96 (a) a class B misdemeanor if committed intentionally or knowingly; and
97 (b) a class C misdemeanor if committed recklessly or with criminal negligence.
98 (4) A person is guilty of aggravated cruelty to an animal if the person:
99 (a) tortures an animal;
100 (b) administers, or causes to be administered, poison or a poisonous substance to an
101 animal; or
102 (c) kills an animal or causes an animal to be killed without having a legal privilege to
103 do so.
104 (5) Except as provided in Subsection (6) or Section 76-9-301.7 , a violation of
105 Subsection (4) is:
106 (a) a class A misdemeanor if committed intentionally or knowingly;
107 (b) a class B misdemeanor if committed recklessly; and
108 (c) a class C misdemeanor if committed with criminal negligence.
109 (6) A person is guilty of a third degree felony if the person intentionally or knowingly
110 tortures a companion animal.
111 (7) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the conduct of the actor towards
112 the animal was:
113 (a) by a licensed veterinarian using accepted veterinary practice;
114 (b) directly related to bona fide experimentation for scientific research, provided that if
115 the animal is to be destroyed, the manner employed will not be unnecessarily cruel unless
116 directly necessary to the veterinary purpose or scientific research involved;
117 (c) permitted under Section 18-1-3 ;
118 (d) by a person who humanely destroys any animal found suffering past recovery for
119 any useful purpose; or
120 (e) by a person who humanely destroys any apparently abandoned animal found on the
121 person’s property.
122 (8) For purposes of Subsection (7)(d), before destroying the suffering animal, the
123 person who is not the owner of the animal shall obtain:
124 (a) the judgment of a veterinarian of the animal’s nonrecoverable condition;
125 (b) the judgment of two other persons called by the person to view the unrecoverable
126 condition of the animal in the person’s presence;
127 (c) the consent from the owner of the animal to the destruction of the animal; or
128 (d) a reasonable conclusion that the animal’s suffering is beyond recovery, through the
129 person’s own observation, if the person is in a location or circumstance where the person is
130 unable to contact another person.
131 (9) This section does not affect or prohibit:
132 (a) the training, instruction, and grooming of animals, if the methods used are in
133 accordance with accepted animal husbandry practices or customary farming practices;
134 (b) the use of an electronic locating or training collar by the owner of an animal for the
135 purpose of lawful animal training, lawful hunting practices, or protecting against loss of that
136 animal; or
137 (c) the lawful hunting of, fishing for, or trapping of, wildlife.
138 (10) County and municipal governments may not prohibit the use of an electronic
139 locating or training collar.
140 (11) Upon conviction under this section, the court may in its discretion, in addition to
141 other penalties:
142 (a) order the defendant to be evaluated to determine the need for psychiatric or
143 psychological counseling, to receive counseling as the court determines to be appropriate, and
144 to pay the costs of the evaluation and counseling;
145 (b) require the defendant to forfeit any rights the defendant has to the animal subjected
146 to a violation of this section and to repay the reasonable costs incurred by any person or agency
147 in caring for each animal subjected to violation of this section;
148 (c) order the defendant to no longer possess or retain custody of any animal, as
149 specified by the court, during the period of the defendant’s probation or parole or other period
150 as designated by the court; and
151 (d) order the animal to be placed for the purpose of adoption or care in the custody of a
152 county and municipal animal control agency, an animal welfare agency registered with the
153 state, sold at public auction, or humanely destroyed.
154 (12) This section does not prohibit the use of animals in lawful training.
155 (13) A veterinarian who, acting in good faith, reports a violation of this section to law
156 enforcement may not be held civilly liable for making the report.
157 Section 2. Section 76-9-301.3 is enacted to read:
158 76-9-301.3. Game fowl fighting — Training game fowl for fighting.
159 (1) As used in this section “game fowl” means any of several breeds of fowl reared or
160 used for fighting other fowl.
161 (2) It is unlawful for any person to:
162 (a) own, possess, keep, or train game fowl with the intent to engage it in fighting with
163 another game fowl;
164 (b) cause a game fowl to fight with or injure another game fowl;
165 (c) manufacture, buy, sell, trade, or possess an instrument designed to enhance the
166 ability to, or likelihood of, causing injury to a game fowl with the intent that the instrument be
167 used in game fowl fighting or game fowl training; or
168 (d) permit or allow any act that violates Subsection (2)(a), (b), or (c) on any premises
169 under the person’s charge.
170 (3) A person who violates Subsection (2) is guilty of a third degree felony.
171 (4) This section does not prohibit the lawful use of livestock by the owner, the owner’s
172 employees or agent, or any other person in the lawful custody of livestock.
173 (5) Any property, material, or device used or possessed in violation of this section is
174 subject to criminal or civil forfeiture under the procedures and substantive protections
175 established in Title 24, Chapter 1, Utah Uniform Forfeiture Procedures Act.
176 Section 3. Section 76-9-301.5 is amended to read:
177 76-9-301.5. Spectator at organized animal fighting exhibitions.
178 It is unlawful for a person to knowingly be present as a spectator at any place, building,
179 or tenement where preparations are being made for an exhibition of the fighting of animals, as
180 prohibited by Subsections 76-9-301 (2)(d) and (e) or Section 76-9-301.3 , or to be present at
181 [such] an animal fighting exhibition, regardless of whether any entrance fee has been charged.
182 A person who violates this section is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.

It’s Not Illegal to Drive Drunk on a Segway

Clayton Simms, Criminal Defense Attorney, on the topic of  Crimes, Dealing with Police
0comment

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled in the State v. Greenman case that “[a] person operating a ‘Segway’ electric personal assistive mobility device is not a driver of a motor vehicle and is not, therefore subject to the prohibitions of Minnesota’s drunk driving laws.” Gentlemen, have a few brews and start your engines (or two-wheeled self-balancing battery powered electric vehicle).

The case involves Mr. Greenman, who “attempted to travel a short distance to his home using his Segway. After traveling along the walking path, Greenman entered the road.” A vehicle slowed down and serve in order to avoid Mr. Greenman on his Segway. The Police stopped Mr. Greenman and noticed signs of intoxication. The police officer conducted DUI field sobriety tests, which Mr. Greenman failed, and “breath test revealed an alcohol concentration of .19.” State v. Greenman, A12-1605, (Minn. App. 2013).

The lower Court held that Mr. Greenman was not guilty of drunk driving because his Segway was not a motor vehicle in light of the State v. Brown case. 801 N.W.2d 186 (Minn. App. 2011). The drunk Segway driver was “acting as a pedestrian” and not a driver of a motor vehicle.

The Brown court ultimately determined that Brown’s mobility scooter was a wheelchair that ‘did not meet the definition of ‘vehicle,’ because it is generally not a ‘device in, upon, or by which a person is or may be transported…upon a highway. Id. at 189. Accordingly, because Brown’s scooter was not a ‘vehicle,’ the court concluded that is was not a ‘motor vehicle’, as the term is used in drunk driving and driving while impaired laws. The Brown court’s interpretation of the traffic and drunk driving codes applies equally to Segways. State v. Greenman, A12-1605, (Minn. App. 2013).

So at the end of the day, according to the Greenman court you can drive your Segway drunk, but you may kill yourself doing so because Segways are difficult to drive sober.

State v. Lamb: Utah Court of Appeals Considers Cattle Rustling Case

The Utah Court of Appeals issued an opinion this week upholding the convictions of Jeff Lamb for three counts of theft of lost property, third degree felonies under Utah Code section 76-6-407. State v. Lamb, 2013 UT App 5, Case No. 20111071-CA.

In 2010, Utah Department of Agriculture Theft Inspectors received a tip of possible cattle rustling in Ephraim, Utah and went to a nearby property to investigate. Using binoculars, the inspectors looked at the cattle on Mr. Lamb’s property and found that one of the calves did not have the Lamb branding marks. Based on this observation, the inspectors entered the first and found two other cows with different ownership markings.

Mr. Lamb challenged his convictions, arguing that the three charges should have been tried in separate trials because the charges involved different owners, different kinds of cattle, and different days when Mr. Lamb obtained them. The trial court disagreed and found that the thefts were part of a common plan or scheme because they were all obtained when Mr. Lamb was driving his herd was between ranges and they were all kept in possession for a long time “without taking reasonable measures to return them.” The court of appeals agreed with the trial court.

Mr. Lamb also argued that the inspectors viewing of his field and entry onto field violated his right against unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The court of appeals disagreed with Mr. Lamb and cited the United States Supreme Court cases that have found that “open fields” are not protected by the Fourth Amendment. According to the court, “An ‘open field’ need not actually even be ‘open’ or a ‘field.’ So long as it is not part of the curtilage of a home, an ‘open field’ can be a secluded field surrounded by woods, fences, chicken wire, or embankments, and entirely out of public view or access; it can even be a cave, a still, a shed, a small concrete building, a chicken coop, a hog pen, a good pen, or an open and shared parking area adjacent to or behind an apartment building.” Lamb, 2013 UT App 5, ¶ 16.

Even though you may own a piece of property, it does not mean that there is absolute right to keep the police from entering onto it. Courts looks to whether the owner has a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the property when considering search challenge.

If you are under investigation or have been arrested, call an experienced criminal defense attorney to help you learn about and protect your rights.

Happy Holidays from Salt Lake Criminal Defense!

Utah Criminal Lawyer, on the topic of  Crimes, Dealing with Police, DUI in Utah, Humor, Utah Law
0comment

 

Robberies Keep Utah Police Busy

Utah Criminal Defense Blog, on the topic of  Crimes, Dealing with Police
0comment

Utah police are currently looking for suspects believed to be responsible for committing recent, unrelated robberies.

Photo: David Schott

First, a woman pulled a gun on a West Valley City smoke shop employee while a child handed the person a note requesting money. Authorities are on the lookout for the unusual duo who made their escape in a silver or grey Dodge Durango.

In a different incident, a man left a Riverton credit union with some money after giving the bank teller a note demanding money. We don’t know if a weapon was displayed by the alleged robber, but he got away and police are searching for him.

A man suspected of stealing from a West Valley City Kmart pulled a gun on store employees who were attempting to question him about his alleged shoplifting. The suspect is on the loose and citizens are urged to call police if they have information about his identity.

Theft and Robbery Are Not the Same Crime

Theft in Utah is usually charged according to the amount of property or services that are stolen. You could be charged with a class B misdemeanor for property valued at less than $500 or all the way up to a second degree felony for property worth $5000 or more.

Keep in mind that robbery is charged separately from theft. Robbery is taking or attempting to take property from another person with the intent to permanently deprive them of their property. Robbery is a second degree felony.

Aggravated Robbery Usually Involves a Weapon

Aggravated robbery, sometimes referred to as armed robbery, occurs when a person uses or threatens to use a dangerous weapon during the course of a robbery. Aggravated robbery is a first degree felony.

Let a Utah Criminal Defense Attorney Help You

If you are charged with committing any robberies or theft, you need to rely on the services of a top Utah criminal defense attorney. Don’t discuss your case with police or the prosecution; use your rights and contact an attorney who will represent your best interests.

Make the right move and call an experienced, successful Utah criminal defense attorney today.

Utah Supreme Court Allows Sex Offender to Seek Reduction in Conviction

0comment

Utah law allows some defendant’s to ask for a reduction in the degree of their offense upon successfully completing probation. See Utah Code § 76-3-402. This law was in effect in 2005 when Mr. Howard Price Johnson pled guilty to unlawful sexual activity with a minor, a third degree felony, and enticing a minor, a class A misdemeanor. At the time of his plea, the prosecution agreed to not oppose a reduction in offense after Mr. Johnson completed probation.

While Mr. Johnson was on probation, the Utah Legislature amended the Utah reduction law to preclude reductions if the conviction “requires the person to register as a sex offender until the registration requirements . . . have expired.” The change in the law occurred in 2006 and Mr. Johnson asked for a reduction of his offense in 2008.

The issue in the case was what version of the law to apply to Mr. Johnson’s convictions–that is, could the court reduce the offense after completion of probation or would the court have to wait until Mr. Johnson completed his time as a registered sex offender. The Utah Supreme Court found that “the substantive right to seek a reduction in conviction vests at the time of initial sentencing.” State v. Johnson, 2012 UT 68.  Effectively, the right to ask for a reduction is substantive, not procedural, so the law controlling the case was the law in place at the time of sentencing.

The court remanded the case to the district court to apply the reduction statute in place in 2005 when Mr. Johnson plead guilty.

If you or someone you know has been charged with a crime, having an experienced criminal attorney to help understand the nuances of complicated provisions of law can make a difference in the result of your case. Call a criminal defense attorney today!

 

Utah Laws on Child Pornography

Utah Criminal Defense Blog, on the topic of  Crimes
0comment

Child pornography in Utah is also referred to as sexual exploitation of a minor and is a usually a second degree felony.

Sexual Exploitation of a Minor

You might be considered guilty of sexual exploitation of a minor if you:

• Produce, possess or possess with intent to distribute any type of child pornography
• Intentionally distribute or view child pornography
• Are the parent or legal guardian of a child whom you allow to be sexually exploited as mentioned above

Multiple Cases of Child Porn Can Receive Separate Charges

Utah law is pretty specific about how many times you can be charged with sexual exploitation of a minor. You can be charged for a separate offense for each minor included in the pornography and for each time the same minor is depicted in different child pornography.

Let’s say you decide to view one picture of child pornography and it turns out that there are three different children under the age of 18 in the picture. You will likely be charged with three separate second degree felonies—one for each under-age child in the picture.

If you are charged with sexual exploitation of a minor and it turns out that no one under the age of 18 appeared in the pornography, you can use that as a defense against the charge.

You Deserve Legal Help

Child pornography is an unpleasant crime, both for the victims and anyone who views it. Many people become unfortunately addicted to pornography and end up serving lengthy prison sentences because of their addiction.

If you are having legal troubles related to child pornography, don’t wait to get the help you need. It’s best to contact an experienced Utah criminal defense attorney who has a proven track record when it comes to defending clients accused of white collar crimes. You are not beyond the reach of amendment. Let an attorney provide you with the best defense possible as you work to straighten out your life.