Salcido Law FirmSalcido Law Firm2026-06-05T14:39:35Zhttps://www.stgeorgecriminaldefenselawyer.com/feed/atom/WordPress/wp-content/uploads/sites/1104476/2024/09/cropped-SalcidoLawFirm-site-icon-32x32.pngOn Behalf of Salcido Law Firm<![CDATA[Can you be arrested for drugs that aren’t yours in Utah?]]>https://www.stgeorgecriminaldefenselawyer.com/?p=486472026-06-05T14:39:35Z2026-06-05T13:54:11ZFew situations feel more frustrating than getting caught up in someone else's mistake. If police find drugs in a shared car, apartment or other common space, you may wonder whether you can face criminal charges even if the drugs do not belong to you. In Utah, the answer can be yes under certain circumstances. Understanding how possession laws work can help you better protect your rights if you find yourself in this position.
How Utah law treats shared possession
Many people assume police can only arrest the person who owns the drugs. However, Utah law allows prosecutors to pursue charges against more than one person in some situations. Under Utah Code § 58-37-2, authorities may allege joint or group possession when multiple individuals have access to or control over an area where drugs are found.Ownership is not always the central issue. Instead, investigators often focus on whether someone knew about the drugs and had the ability to exercise control over them. For example, if officers discover drugs inside a shared vehicle, they may investigate all occupants rather than just the driver. Similar concerns can arise when drugs are found in a shared apartment, dorm room or home.Because these cases often depend on circumstantial evidence, law enforcement may draw conclusions from the surrounding facts rather than direct proof of ownership.
Why packaging and other factors matter
Drug charges can become more serious when police believe the circumstances suggest distribution rather than personal use. In some cases, officers may infer an intent to distribute based on how drugs are packaged or stored.Factors investigators may consider include:
Multiple small bags or packages containing drugs
Large quantities of controlled substances
Digital scales or packaging materials nearby
Significant amounts of cash found with the drugs
Text messages or other communications that appear drug-related
None of these factors automatically prove criminal activity. However, prosecutors may use them to support allegations that a person possessed drugs with the intent to distribute.When drugs are found in a shared space, these details can make an already complicated situation even more challenging. The specific facts of each case often play a major role in determining whether charges are filed and against whom.A careful review of the evidence can reveal important questions about knowledge, control and intent.
Protecting your rights after an arrest
Being arrested for drugs that are not yours can feel overwhelming, especially when multiple people have access to the location where the drugs were found. Fortunately, an arrest does not automatically mean a conviction. Every case involves unique facts that deserve careful examination. If you face drug-related allegations in Utah, seeking legal guidance can help you understand your options and protect your rights.]]>On Behalf of Salcido Law Firm<![CDATA[Will a Utah DUI put a ‘red banner’ on your driver’s license?]]>https://www.stgeorgecriminaldefenselawyer.com/?p=486382026-03-05T21:35:53Z2026-03-05T21:35:53ZConsequences for ‘extreme’ intoxication
While the standard legal limit remains .05, reaching a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .16 triggers much harsher judicial consequences.
If a court convicts you of an "extreme DUI" at this level, the judge designates you as an "interdicted person," a legal status that strips away your right to purchase or possess alcohol anywhere in the state of Utah.
Living with a ‘red banner’ license
Once the court labels you an interdicted person, you must surrender your current driver’s license to the Driver License Division (DLD). The state then issues a replacement card featuring a bright red banner that explicitly states "NO ALCOHOL SALE."
It serves as a public warning to every cashier, server or bartender who checks your ID. Retailers face heavy legal risks if they sell to you, and you face fresh criminal charges for simply trying to buy a drink. Consequences include:
Businesses must refuse the sale.
The red banner remains until your court-ordered interdiction period ends.
Attempting a purchase constitutes a separate criminal offense.
The physical license serves as a constant reminder of your conviction every time you use it for identification, causing stress or embarrassment when you show it to others.
A deadline you cannot miss
Most drivers do not realize that the clock starts ticking the moment they leave police custody for a DUI. You have exactly 10 days to request an administrative hearing with the DLD to protect your driving privileges.
While this hearing does not stop the "red banner" (which only a judge can order), it is your only chance to prevent an automatic license suspension. The DLD hearing allows you to challenge the initial evidence and the officer's arrest procedure.
This administrative process serves as your first line of defense against the state's attempt to revoke your driving privileges:
You must submit a written request within 10 days of your arrest.
The administrative hearing is separate from your criminal court dates.
Winning this hearing can save your license while you fight the criminal charges.
The DLD hearing provides the only formal opportunity to contest a license suspension before it takes effect. Missing this deadline often leaves you without any way to drive to work or school.
Crucial reasons to challenge a DUI
A high BAC reading does not guarantee a conviction. Testing equipment can fail, or officers can skip vital steps during the roadside investigation. Challenging these technical details requires a deep understanding of how Utah’s 2026 updates interact with your constitutional rights.
A skilled DUI defense lawyer who understands these new rules can help you avoid the lasting stigma of a "red banner" ID. They can find flaws in the state's case that a person without legal training might overlook.]]>On Behalf of Salcido Law Firm<![CDATA[How bail bonds work in Utah]]>https://www.stgeorgecriminaldefenselawyer.com/?p=486302025-12-05T16:22:01Z2025-12-05T16:19:28ZUnderstanding how bail bonds work in Utah can help you navigate the first stages of a criminal case with more clarity. Utah’s system focuses on securing your appearance in court and assessing risk rather than punishing you before trial.
How bail works in Utah
A judge sets bail after reviewing the allegations, your history and your community ties according to Utah law. addresses the right to bail and explains when a court can deny release based on public safety or flight risk. Some counties also use preset bail schedules for common offenses.When bail is higher than you can pay in cash, you can use a bail bond. A bond guarantees the full bail amount if you miss court. A bail bond agency charges a non-refundable fee between 10% and 20%, posts the surety bond with the court and may ask for collateral if the bail amount is significant.
Types of bonds available
Some defendants prefer alternatives that give them more control over cost and the type of financial commitment they make. You may have choices depending on your situation:
Cash bond: You pay the full amount to the court and receive it back if you meet all court obligations
Signature bond: You sign a promise to appear and agree to pay if you miss a hearing
Property bond: You pledge real property that the court may claim if you do not follow release conditions
These options may work when a surety bond does not fit your financial circumstances.
What the Public Safety Assessment does
Utah courts often use the Public Safety Assessment, a risk tool that evaluates factors like criminal history and likelihood of appearing for court. Judges use these scores to decide whether to set bail, adjust conditions or allow release without payment. If you are unsure how these rules apply to your situation, you could speak with a criminal defense attorney. ]]>On Behalf of Salcido Law Firm<![CDATA[Child Abuse and Spanking with a Belt Under Utah Law]]>https://www.stgeorgecriminaldefenselawyer.com/?p=474812024-09-29T17:43:56Z2024-09-29T16:42:46ZSpanking with a Belt is not Per Se Child Abuse
In a juvenile court case, the parents had been accused of child abuse and neglect. As part of the adjudication of the case, the parties stipulated that the parents used a belt to spank the children, including a belt with rhinestones. Based on the stipulated set of facts, the court held that hitting a child with a belt or another object is abuse and causes non-accidental harm; striking or hitting a child at any age can never be appropriate or reasonable discipline; the simple striking of a child with a belt causes pain and is abuse.
The Utah Supreme Court rejected the per se rule found by the trial court and found that the simple finding that spanking a child with a belt occurred is not sufficient to make a finding of harm and child abuse. The court found that the trial court’s definition of child abuse to include anytime an object is used to strike a child is overly broad and could include spanking and otherwise striking a child that does not cause any harm. The court even gave the specific example of a parent hitting a child with a nerf gun. Such action would constitute child abuse under the trial court’s interpretation of the law. Additionally, throwing a pillow or a rolled sock at a child would also constitute child abuse according to the trial court.
The UTah Supreme Court made the point that all the trial court had to do was require evidence of harm and that doing such would not have been difficult. Instead of doing that, the trial court decided to take a per se approach, which just was not supported by the definition of abuse.]]>On Behalf of Salcido Law Firm<![CDATA[The Many Faces of Assault Charges]]>https://www.stgeorgecriminaldefenselawyer.com/?p=474792024-10-04T14:59:49Z2017-09-27T16:39:39ZAggravated Assault
Agg Assault as it is often called is when an assault charge includes additionally elements that the legislature believes are so severe that the charge should be increased to a more serious crime. What this includes is an attempt, threat, or act that causes bodily injury that also involves a dangerous weapon or a force likely to produce death or serious bodily injury, including anything that impedes breathing or the circulation of blood, like choking. As previously stated an aggravated charge is a much more serious offense and can be charged as a second or third degree felony depending on the facts of the case.
Domestic Violence
While there is a lot of talk about domestic violence there isn’t actually a specific domestic violence crime in Utah. Instead in the criminal justice system here domestic violence is a special moniker that can be added to other charges. So for example an assault charge could just be a simple non DV related offense or it could be domestic violence related based on the alleged victim. In most cases a domestic violence offense is applied because the alleged victim is the defendant’s spouse or significant other, however domestic violence also applies to any cohabitant which includes current and former spouses/significant others; family members, and roommates.
Violent crimes like assault are serious offenses that carry steep penalties and increased fines. If you are facing a violent crime offense its very important you hire private counsel to represent you. This is a complicated area of the law that will have an in extremely negative impact on your life and because of that an experienced attorney is crucial to make sure you don’t suffer more than you have to.]]>On Behalf of Salcido Law Firm<![CDATA[DUI Metabolite Law Upheld As Constitutional by Utah Supremes]]>https://www.stgeorgecriminaldefenselawyer.com/?p=474802024-09-29T17:44:06Z2017-09-08T16:39:47ZDUI Metabolite is not Unconstitutional Say Utah Supreme Court
Wyatt Jeff Outzen was charged with DUI metabolite because he fell asleep while driving and struck the back of another car. Utah Highway Patrol troopers did not find any contraband in Mr. Outzen’s car, but they did see and smell signs of marijuana; for instance, they noticed a lack of convergence in his eyes and green mucus covering his tongue. Mr. Outzen agreed to undergo field sobriety tests, and the result was that he was not too impaired to drive. However, his blood did test positive for the primary metabolite of marijuana.
Mr. Outzen was charged under Utah Code section 41-6a-517 with one count of DUI metabolite, driving with a metabolite of a controlled substance in the body, which is a class B misdemeanor. Mr. Outzen entered a guilty plea in Utah County Justice Court, and then appealed to the Fourth Judicial District Court for a trial de novo. He filed a motion to dismiss and argued that the plain language of section 41-6a-517 requires a showing of impairment and that the statute violates the U.S. Constitution. His motion was denied.
On appeal, the Supreme Court of Utah first decided that the plain language of the Utah Code section 41-6a-517 does not require impairment. It explained that the statute criminalizes driving with any measurable controlled substance or metabolite of a controlled substance in the person’s body. Thus, to limit the measurable controlled substances and metabolites to those that cause impairment would reduce the scope of the statute to less than “any.” The plain language of this section is unambiguous.
Next, the Supreme Court of Utah concluded that the DUI metabolite law, Utah Code section 41-6a-517, does not violate the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Outzen argued that the Code violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution because it constituted a status offense under Robinson v. California, meaning that criminalizing an addiction does not punish a person for the use of narcotics, but rather makes the status of narcotic addiction a criminal offense. Imprisoning a person thus afflicted as a criminal inflicts a cruel and unusual punishment. The Outzen court explained that section 41-6a-517 does not criminalize the status of being addicted to a controlled substance; it criminalizes the act of driving while any measurable amount or metabolite of the controlled substance is in the driver’s body. Therefore, this Code section is not a status offense and does not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The judgment of the district court was affirmed.]]>On Behalf of Salcido Law Firm<![CDATA[Actual Physical Control When You Aren’t Driving]]>https://www.stgeorgecriminaldefenselawyer.com/?p=474842024-10-07T19:24:18Z2017-01-23T17:42:51ZActual Physical Control of a Vehicle You Aren’t Driving
In State v. Cook, 2017 UT App 8, the court addressed a DUI involving a four wheeler and whether the defendant, who wasn’t driving the four wheeler, was in actual physical control of the vehicle. In that case, a police officer noticed an ATV driving at high speed on a snow-covered road. The officer observed three people on the ATV: a ten-year-old in the front, Elizabeth Victoria Cook in the middle, and an eighteen-year-old in the back. Cook was holding a beer can in one hand and the handlebars of the ATV with her other hand. The officer pulled the ATV over, but he noticed that the beer can disappeared. He found the beer can in the snow, which was opened and half-consumed. The officer also found another beer in Cook’s pocket.
Cook was arrested and taken to the Iron County Jail where she underwent sobriety tests and a chemical breath test. She failed the tests and had a breath alcohol concentration of .119 grams. Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 41-6a-502(1)(a), a person may not operate or be in actual physical control of a vehicle if a test reveals that a person has a blood or breath alcohol concentration of .08 grams or greater. Therefore, Cook was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol with a passenger under the age of sixteen. She was convicted and sentenced after a bench trial.
Cook made three arguments on appeal: (1) she was not in “actual physical control” of the ATV because the child was driving, (2) the trial court erroneously admitted the results of her breathalyzer test, and (3) her trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance.
The Utah Court of Appeals first looked to whether Cook was in actual physical control of the vehicle by examining the totality of the circumstances. A person does not have to actually move, or attempt to move, a vehicle in order to have actual physical control. The person only has to have the apparent ability to start and move the vehicle. Thus, a person doesn’t have to operate, or attempt to operate, a vehicle before he or she may be found to be in actual physical control. The child testified that Cook assisted in steering the ATV by guiding the child’s shoulders, and that Cook helped the child steer because the child almost crashed. Cook’s conduct therefore qualified as actual physical control over the vehicle even if the child was driving.
The court then looked at Cook’s second contention that the trial court erroneously admitted the breathalyzer test results, and she argued that the officer did not administer the test properly. Cook said that the requirement for a fifteen-minute observation period was not met because the officer used his phone to start the observation period and used the breathalyzer to mark the end of it, insinuating that the two separate devices may not have been synchronized. However, the administering officer’s trial testimony dispelled this argument, as he testified that the machine was working properly, he properly administered the test, and he observed more than the requisite waiting period as marked by the breathalyzer.
Lastly, the court concluded that Cook’s trial counsel was not ineffective by failing to more thoroughly develop the motion to suppress. In order to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must demonstrate both that counsel’s performance was deficient and that counsel’s deficient performance was prejudicial. The court concluded that a more fully developed motion to suppress would not have succeeded because the admissibility requirements regarding the breathalyzer results were satisfied. Therefore, the judgment was affirmed.
]]>On Behalf of Salcido Law Firm<![CDATA[DUI Enhancement and State v. Jimenez]]>https://www.stgeorgecriminaldefenselawyer.com/?p=474862024-10-04T15:00:27Z2016-10-11T16:42:59ZAppeal
On appeal, this court reviewed the district court’s factual findings of enhancement for clear error and its legal conclusions for correctness. A prior conviction may not be used to enhance a criminal charge if that conviction was obtained in violation of the defendant’s right to counsel. This court explained that there were aspects of the Plea Document that gave rise to an inference that Jimenez-Wiss did not waive her right to counsel. The document provided three opportunities to specifically affirm that she waived her right to counsel, but she availed herself of none of those opportunities. The Utah Supreme Court has held that, “considering the strong presumption against waiver and the fundamental nature of the right to counsel, any doubts must be resolved in favor of the defendant.” State v. Pedockie, 137 P.3d 716, 725 (Utah 2006). The Plea Document was ambiguous as to her intentions with respect to counsel, and her failure to clearly express a waiver of her right to counsel raised doubt about her intentions. This court concluded that under Pedockie, it must resolve that doubt against waiver and decide that the State failed to meet its burden and the enhancement did not stand. This court vacated Jimenez-Wiss’s conviction on the 2012 charge and remanded this matter for further proceedings.]]>On Behalf of Salcido Law Firm<![CDATA[The Single Larceny Rule As Applied to Aggravated Robbery]]>https://www.stgeorgecriminaldefenselawyer.com/?p=474872024-09-30T14:50:28Z2016-07-29T16:43:14ZMultiple Aggravated Robbery Counts May Be Combined Under the Single Larceny Rule
Three friends drove together to a cell phone store where they entered the store but did not lock the car doors. Bell was someone inside the store, but when he left he began checking cars in the parking lot for unlocked doors. He ended up inside of the three friends’ car, which led the three friends to run outside of the store to try to get Bell out of their car. Bell pointed his knife at the friends to keep them away. Eventually, Bell grabbed the purse that was on the floor of the passenger seat and started running. The three friends, store manager, and bystanders gave chase and were able to get the purse back, but Bell then grabbed the rental keys for another car that were inside of the friends’ car as well as some credit cards and took off again. The driver of a nearby car bumped Bell with his car and told him to drop the stolen items. Bell threw the items into some bushes, kept running, and was arrested by the police.
Bell told the police that he was on methamphetamine and had not slept for three days. He began vomiting at the police station, so he was sent to the hospital. He later stated that he could not remember any of the events that took place in the parking lot of the cell phone store. He was convicted of and sentenced for three crimes: aggravated robbery of the car, aggravated robbery of the purse, and brandishing a dangerous weapon in a fight or quarrel. On appeal, Bell challenged the first two convictions, which are both first degree felonies.
Bell contended that his trial counsel performed ineffectively by not seeking merger of the two aggravated robbery counts under the single larceny rule. This rule has evolved to limit charging discretion in the context of aggregating or separating theft counts based on their dollar values for the purpose of maximizing criminal liability. If the taking constitutes a single act, then there is one offense and the multiple ownership of the property taken is immaterial. In other words, if there is one intention, one general impulse, and one plan, even though there’s a series of transactions, there is only one offense.
What the Court of Appeals Did
The court explained that Bell completed the robbery when he attempted to take the car from the owner’s immediate presence by means of force or fear. Therefore, he robbed both the car and its contents, including the purse. A thief who steals a car may later remove its contents and decide to keep or discard an item. This court did not see a conceivable tactical basis for not seeking merger in the trial court. The State’s argument that defense counsel did not perform deficiently was that the merger motion would have been futile. Failing to file a futile motion does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Thus, this court looked at whether a merger motion would have been futile or would have been granted.
In conclusion, the two aggravated robbery convictions had to be merged because Bell committed one aggravated robbery rather than two, as he could not be prosecuted once for stealing the purse with the car and a second time for stealing the purse from the car. Because a motion to merge would have been successful, not futile, and making the motion would have been risk-free, counsel performed ineffectively by not making it. Bell’s conviction of aggravated robbery in connection with the car was affirmed, and his conviction of aggravated robbery in connection with the purse was vacated.]]>On Behalf of Salcido Law Firm<![CDATA[What is Consensual Sex in Utah?]]>https://www.stgeorgecriminaldefenselawyer.com/?p=485632016-01-08T17:46:05Z2016-01-08T17:46:05ZConsensual Sex Is Defined by Utah Statute
Whether sex is consensual has been the topic of many a court case. One party stating it was not consensual sex, the other party having the opposite perception. The issue of consensual sex has come up over the years so much in both civil and criminal cases that the Utah legislature found it important enough to actually define instances that do not constitute consensual sex. These examples have been codified in the Utah Code. They include:
When the victim actually uses words or conduct which express a lack of consent.
When the defendant used physical force or violence to overcome the victim.
When the defendant overcomes the victim through concealment or the element of surprise. This is an interesting one. The statute does not explain more than this so in terms of how it is different from using force or violence is a little confusing. How would one use “concealment” or the “element of surprise” to have sex with someone without also using force or violence?
When the defendant coerces the victim to submit to having sex because the defendant threatens to retaliate against the victim in the immediate future.
Sex with an unconscious person or with a person who is not aware it is happening or with a person who can’t physically resist.
Sex with a person who has a mental defect who can’t really judge as to the nature of what’s going on.
When the person submits because he or she thinks the other person is his or her spouse. It would be interesting to see how someone could pull this off.
Administering a substance without the victim’s knowledge such as drugs and alcohol which will impair the individual to a degree that makes him or her incapable of controlling his actions.
The victim was a minor and the defendant was a parent, stepparent, adoptive parent or legal guardian or was otherwise in a position of special trust to the victim.
The defendant is under 18 but more than 3 years older than the victim and the victim is 14 or older and the defendant entices or coerces the victim submit.
The defendant is a health care professional or a religious counselor and the act is provided as part of the diagnosis, counseling or treatment and the victim believes it was necessary as part of the treatment.
First Degree Felony Charges When No Consensual Sex Involved
When a prosecutor is alleging that there was no consensual sex involved in a situation he will almost almost bring first degree felony charges against the defendant, which if convicted, will generally carry mandatory prison time including life in prison and mandatory lifetime sex offender registration.]]>