Utah's Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), and is minion, Child Protective Services (CPS), is growing more powerful by the day. With its own investigators (and police officers and detectives as backup and partners) DCFS and CPS terrorize law abiding parents and juveniles on a regular basis.
DCFS case workers and investigators encourage citizens not to retain attorneys, telling parents that they don't need an attorney and that most people don't retain attorneys when dealing with DCFS. DCFS then refers its cases to law enforcement for prosecution as criminal cases after they have obtained your cooperation, using your statements against you in criminal proceedings. Also, the State of Utah attempts to use records of confidential sealed Juvenile Court DCFS proceedings against you in criminal cases.
Whether you have been contacted by DCFS, or DCFS has filed a case against you in Juvenile Court as a parent, you should immediatly retain an attorney to represent you.
If you are contacted by DCFS or CPS for any reason, whether you are a parent or not, you should decline to speak to the case worker or investigator until you have an attorney present, and you should retain an experienced attorney without delay.
In State v. Doran, 2007 UT App 119 (April 12, 2007), the defendant voluntarily went to a police station and answered police questions about alleged sexual abuse of a child. The defendant was then convicted of aggravated sexual abuse of a child. The defendant appealed, arguing that his “confession” violated the Fifth Amendment. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant was not in custody when he made statements to the police. The Court held that a person’s Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination requires police to “give pre-interrogation warnings to persons in custody.” The defendant, however, was not in custody because he voluntarily entered the police station, was interviewed in an unlocked room, the interviewing police officer was unarmed and did not accuse or threaten him, the interview was relatively short and consisted of only a few clarifying questions, and defendant was free to leave.
In State v. Duran, 2007 UT 23 (March 9, 2007), police officers approached a trailer home and smelled the odor of marijuana. The officers decided that “exigent circumstances” existed that would allow them to enter the trailer without first obtaining a search warrant. Inside, they found controlled substances and firearms, and the defendant was convicted. The Utah Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the odor of marijuana alone did not satisfy the “exigent circumstances” exception to the warrant requirement. The Court held that by smoking marijuana, the defendant was not destroying the evidence in order to prevent its discovery by law enforcement. Until the warrantless entry, the defendant was unaware of police involvement and had no reason to destroy the marijuana. In addition, there was nothing in the record to suggest that police had reason to believe the evidence of drug use would be destroyed if they delayed their intrusion. Even if some of the marijuana was destroyed through the process of smoking, evidence of drug use would linger in the form of residue, paraphernalia, and unsmoked marijuana.
In State v. Miller, 2008 UT 61 (August 29, 2008), the defendant had a party in his home. While he was cleaning up after the party, he found a bottle containing a prescription medication with a label indicating that the prescription belonged to one of the people at the party. As he was cleaning, the defendant put the bottle in his pants pocket, intending to later return it to the owner. The defendant was later arrested and the bottle was found in a search incident to arrest. At his trial for possession of a controlled substance, the defendant raised a defense known as “innocent possession.” The defendant was convicted, and appealed to the Utah Supreme Court, which reversed the conviction, holding that “the possession statute implicitly includes the defense of innocent possession” and that the defendant “was entitled to an instruction based upon it.” The Supreme Court held that the “innocent possession” defense “applies if (1) the controlled substance was attained innocently and held with no illicit or illegal purpose, and (2) the possession of the controlled substance was transitory (in other words, the defendant took adequate measures to rid himself of possession of the controlled substances as promptly as reasonably possible. Although the Court did not impose an arbitrary time limit on the defendant for returning a prescription controlled substance to its owner, it leaves open the question of whether a defendant has taken reasonable measures to rid himself of the prescription.
Police officers often threaten to charge citizens with "obstruction of justice" if they don't waive their constitutional rights and "cooperate" and speak with the police. Athough such threats seem to meet the definition of the crime of blackmail, the practice is common among law enforcement. Utah's obstruction of justice statute is found in Utah Code Section 76-8-306, which states:
76-8-306. Obstruction of justice in criminal investigations or proceedings -- Elements -- Penalties -- Exceptions.
This website and the associated pages are provided to you for information purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. Neither David W. Steffensen nor the Law Office of David W. Steffensen, P.C. assume any responsibility for the accuracy or timeliness of any information provided in this Website. You should not act upon any information in this Website without seeking the advice of an attorney. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. If you would like Attorney to represent you and create an attorney-client relationship, please contact Attorney by telephone or in writing and receive a response.
Attorney cannot represent you until it is known that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Hypertext links may be included on this Website. However, the pages linked in this Website are not under the control of Attorney, and the pages linked to are in no way related to Attorney and do not endorse Attorney. Accordingly, Attorney can make no representation concerning the quality, safety, or suitability of the content of these sites, nor can or does the fact that Attorney has included any link serve as an endorsement by Attorney of any of these sites. Attorney is providing this Website, the information, listings, and links contained in the Website, only as a convenience to you. No person or attorney other than Attorney endorses or is in any way related to this site.
Your use of this Website is at your own risk. The materials presented on this site may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. Attorney does not represent that he is the attorney in cases reported on this site, and no person should assume so. These materials may be changed, improved, or updated without notice. Attorney is not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content of this site or for damages arising from the use or performance of this site under any circumstances.