A Plea in Abeyance (or PIA) is an agreement between the defendant and the prosecutor in a criminal case. It involves the defendant and prosecutor agreeing to specific terms that the defendant will complete in order to prevent the charges from going on their criminal record.

Once, the defendant and prosecutor have come up with an agreement, the judge holds the agreement in place until all the agreed upon terms are completed.

Typical PIA terms may include:

A Plea in Abeyance’s terms is usually a combination of the two or three terms listed above. However, it is rarely just one of the terms.

The pleas for any given charge will also vary person-to-person and county-to-county. An  PIA agreement for  someone in one county may differ from the agreement given to someone in another county. However, many PIAs are held for at least 6 to 12 months.

Is a PIA a conviction?

No. A PIA does not go on your record like a flat-out guilty plea does. It allows the judge to dismiss your charges once you’ve completed your end of the agreement.

Getting a Plea in Abeyance is similar to getting a speeding ticket and then going to traffic school in order to keep the ticket from going on your driving record.

Can I expunge a PIA?

Yes. Read our information about expungements here.

Click here, to read the official definition of a Plea in Abeyance in Utah.

This kind of plea deal is one of the most ideal outcomes other than a case dismissal. Hiring an attorney is the best way to go if you want to get a deal like a Plea in Abeyance.

Call us today (801) 990-4200

Revenge Porn Law

This spring, Utah became one of thirteen states to enact a “Revenge Porn” law.  The law’s official name is the Distribution of Intimate Images Act.  You are breaking this law if you intentionally distribute an intimate image of someone (example: your ex) to a third party knowing that you don’t have the person in the picture’s consent.  And you have to do it with the intention of causing emotional distress or harm (example: revenge).    Incidentally, if the person in the picture is under 18 you have committed a whole different crime. Pro tip: never do this.

Where does the law apply?

Obviously this law applies if you happened to have snapped the explicit pictures without the other person’s knowledge. (And, once again, if this applies to you, you have committed several additional crimes).  But it applies equally if the pictures were taken consensually.  You might think that if someone sends you a picture of their own free will you are then the owner of that picture and free to do with it whatever you want.   Not so.  Noncommercial intimate images come with an expectation of privacy, meaning that the giver has the right to expect that they won’t be misused.   The most commonly cited comparison is that when you give a waiter your credit card to pay for your meal, you don’t authorize him to use it to take his family to Fiji.

What about Freedom of Speech?

Don’t think you can hide behind the First Amendment either.  Unlike regular pornography, there is no freedom of speech protection for Revenge Porn.  It goes back to the consent issue.  In general, your constitutional rights end when they start infringing on someone else’s.  For example, freedom of religion is protected by the First Amendment, but that doesn’t give you the right to wage jihad.

Critics of the Revenge Porn law think that it doesn’t go far enough because of the requirement that you must intend to cause emotional distress or harm.  It probably can’t touch people who operate revenge porn websites for money.  It also probably wouldn’t apply to the guys who hacked celebrities’ cloud accounts and tweeted their scandalous photos last summer.  These scenarios, however, are probably already covered under the federal laws that regulate the adult film industry.  These laws require that everyone who participates in making porn is consenting and over the age of 18.  Producers of all adult media, including websites, are required to keep files containing the IDs of everyone involved and these files are actually monitored regularly.

Consequences

Distributing an intimate image is a class A misdemeanor.  For a second criminal episode or any others thereafter it is a third degree felony.  A single criminal episode means “all conduct which is closely related in time and is incident to an attempt or an accomplishment of a single criminal objective.” See here.

One text message sent to multiple people qualifies as a single episode.  These are pretty stiff penalties.  A conviction for a class A misdemeanor can get you jail time.  For a third degree felony you could even end up in prison.  There are numerous other consequences including fines and a criminal record that can follow you for the rest of your life.  A Revenge Porn conviction can be especially problematic if you and your ex are in the process of getting divorced.  Judges making custody decisions don’t like criminal convictions generally and tend to see this specific kind of conviction as an indication that you are not going to do well holding you your end of a co-parenting relationship.  And depending on the circumstances, you could also be charged with distribution of pornography and electronic communications harassment.

If you have questions about the Revenge Porn law, you can contact us.  You can read Utah’s Distribution of an Intimate Image law for yourself at this website.

In the Hunger Games trilogy, the Capitol has immense power and it maintains its power, in part, by establishing laws to maintain peace and order in its districts. The Capitol enforces its laws by way of the “Peacekeepers”—a law enforcement force which uses harsh tactics to monitor and regulate the people with an iron fist. The strict laws and the broad discretion given to the Peacekeepers allow the Peacekeepers to exercise their power over the people without worry of being punished for unjust or malicious actions.

In Utah, there are approximately 10,700 criminal laws on the books at the city, county, and state level. There are at least another 4,500 federal crimes (Congressman James Sensenbrenner asked the Congressional Research Service to compile a list of all of the federal crimes and he was told the office didn’t have the manpower and resources to make such a list).

Every year, the Utah State Legislature passes hundreds of new laws, but despite this influx of new laws, usually only a handful of old criminal laws are removed. To enforce these laws, the State and its various local municipalities employ various forms of law enforcement. While there is much more oversight and regulation of a police force than we see over the Peacekeepers of District 12, officers still hold an incredible amount of power.

For example, the U.S. Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches or seizures, requiring that any arrest or detainment be reasonable. The U.S. Supreme Court set guidelines for the evidence required to define what is “reasonable” in various circumstances and levels of interaction.

For an officer to simply stop and talk to someone on the sidewalk, a voluntary encounter, no evidence of a crime is necessary. But if they want to detain someone or keep them from leaving, an officer must show that there is “reasonable suspicion” that they committed a crime. If they can articulate a reason for their suspicion, they can hold someone.

An arrest requires an slightly greater showing of evidence. For an arrest, an officer must show “probable cause,” which is the point where “a person of reasonable caution would conclude that there’s a probability that a person committed the alleged crime.” But even though that sounds like the police have to have some solid evidence to make an arrest, they really don’t. The courts have said that probable cause can be less than 50% certainty. So you and I can be arrested even if the officer thinks that we probably didn’t commit the crime, and even if the evidence is based on hearsay, as long as there is a “reasonable probability” that we did.

All of these standards seemingly provide a great deal of comfort until the thousands of state, federal and municipal laws come back into play. With so many laws, some of which are so broad that they can apply to countless situations, police officers have a wide berth. For example, think of all the traffic laws and laws like “disorderly conduct” and “criminal mischief” for which we can be arrested. Not coming to a full stop at a sidewalk before entering a roadway could be grounds for arrest. Same goes for a busted tail light or making loud noises in public and on and on.

One book, titled Three Felonies A Day, states that most people go about their regular lives unknowingly committing several federal crimes simply because there are so many laws. And even if you or I are arrested but later the charges are dropped or we are shown to be innocent, just being charged can cost a lifetime of pain. Records of arrests are made public. Bailing out of jail and hiring an attorney could cost many thousands of dollars. And if you don’t have the money to bail out, you have to sit in jail until your case is concluded weeks or months or years later.

Of course, Utah officers are not District 12 Peacekeepers, and most officers are an honorable and important part of our society and communities.  And without them, we would likely feel much less safe, perhaps living in a society more like the wild west. But the truth is, they, like all groups of people in society, are comprised of different types, some good, some bad. Some honest, some dishonest. Some who use their power responsibly, and some who use their power irresponsibly.

In my mind, the most obvious way we are getting closer to the dystopia in the Hunger Games is that we are giving more and more power to the government by way of new laws to enforce and greater power to enforce them.

Before a decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1980’s, officers couldn’t pull someone over for a traffic violation when they were really planning on doing a drug search, because there was a “pretext” (fake reason) for stopping the citizen. But the high court decided it was too difficult to determine whether officers were telling the truth and ruled that as long as they can show reasonable suspicion of any traffic violation they can stop someone (even if it’s just to look in your windows and smell for Colorado-made products).

So now, as long as police can show any kind of reasonable suspicion for any of the 10,000 local laws or 4,500 federal laws, they can seize you for further investigation. And if you are defiant or act like a know-it-all citizen when they stop you, all they have to do is find probable cause (less than 50% certainty) for one of those crimes, and they can put you in cuffs and take you to jail.

In my experience, most officers (like most people), are good. However, like English Lord Acton said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” So in the first place, we should be more careful about passing more and more criminal laws each year. And second, we should make sure we watch the watchers by carefully scrutinizing the actions of police. Yes, it will make their job harder to do, but checks on power are fundamental to maintaining our freedom.

No one wants a lawless society, but no one wants to live in District 12, either.

Can’t get enough of the Hunger Games?  Intermountain Legal is giving away tickets to the premiere of “Mockingjay – Part 1” – the third installment of the Hunger Games series! Check out our promotions page for more info and to enter. 

When I was in my law school criminal law class and we were talking about rape, the professor asked, “Where is the line between consent and lack of consent? Does a female actually have to say ‘yes, I agree to have sex with you?’ Or is it consent as long as she doesn’t say ‘no!’?

One student raised his hand. “Are you kidding me?” he said. “If my wife had to say yes every time we had sex, I would still be childless and my wife and I never would have consummated our marriage.” About half the class laughed. The other half stayed silent.

Interestingly, that proposed “yes” standard recently caught on in at least one state. California recently adopted a new law for its publicly-funded schools which requires all universities that receive state money to toss out the old adage of “no means no,” for, in effect, yes means yes.

The bill states:

“It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time.” 

In other words, if you really want to make sure your girlfriend (or boyfriend) or wife (or husband) doesn’t get mad at you and bring sexual assault charges against you after you break up or get divorced, you should probably get a signed consent form before even starting down that route. If you don’t, and the school’s investigation concludes that she didn’t say “yes,” the school will lose state funding unless they toss you out of school.

Rape, sexual assault, sexual abuse, etc. have always been and will always be sensitive issues—and rightly so. But they also pose unique challenges under the law.

In Utah, the rape statute requires that the state prove that a defendant assaulted someone else without consent and they must also show that the defendant did it knowingly, intentionally and/or recklessly.

Still, the nature of these crimes often come down to one person’s word against another, making sex crimes a situation where the most severe penalties come from the least amount of evidence. Rape is a first-degree felony in Utah, carrying a possible sentence of five years to life in prison. In a murder case, you also face life in prison. But in murder cases, you’ll have eyewitnesses, expert witnesses, forensic evidence etc. Sexual assault cases can, and often do, hinge on one person’s account versus another’s.

As is human nature, juries tend to side with victims. They are given legal instructions and standards and guidelines, but it’s hard to rule out emotion, sympathy and the desire to protect those seen as vulnerable and give them the justice they’re seeking. Not to mention the fact that despite the ideal of “innocent until proven guilty,” most people read past the “alleged” in the media reports and assume the “alleged” incidents are facts and the accused is obviously guilty (and if they deny it, they’re just lying to save face and protect themselves). It is a loaded, sensitive issue that carries with it a lot of legal complications and huge risks.

So, as I said, the best way to avoid it all is to get a signed, notarized consent form before rounding the corner to second base! In all seriousness, though, a word of advice from a defense attorney: Don’t get involved sexually with someone who might have any reason to be embarrassed or ashamed to be involved with you.

The sex cases I handle in which I strongly believe my client is innocent most often involve an accuser who is married, or is a co-worker that doesn’t want the gossip to make her look bad, or is worried about what her religious parents might think, etc. If there is any chance that the person you are about to have sex with will strongly regret that decision and feel like they have to justify what just happened to themselves, their spouse, their boyfriend, their parents, or anyone else, don’t take the risk! If you do, you better know a good criminal defense lawyer and have the money to hire them.

What do you think about California’s ‘yes means yes’ law?  An important step in preventing sexual violence on campus, or a disturbing precedent for government regulation of consensual sex?

Usually when I think of a citizen’s arrest, I think about those bad movies or comedy skits where some unlikeable gomer (think Dwight Schrute) makes a citizen’s arrest and the arrestee resists and some sort of ridiculous interaction ensues.  And since bad movies were my source of information, I always thought that a citizen’s arrest was something that may have existed sometime in the past, but didn’t actually exist anymore….I was wrong.

Utah code lays out when a private person may arrest another:

1)     When the crime was committed (or attempted) in the citizen’s presence, OR

2)     When the citizen has “reasonable cause” that the arrestee has committed a felony, whether or not it was committed in the person’s presence.

This is amazing to me.  These two situations happen all the time.  Frankly, I don’t know why this hasn’t caught on.  Can you imagine how much fun it would be to arrest all the people who drive slow in the fast lane or let their dogs poop on your lawn?  Or for those who are service-minded, you could go to concerts with a bag of zip ties to catch all those people smokin’ that wacky tobacky.  You could, if you wanted to, arrest like 150 people for traffic violations on your way to work.  Then again, I guess I’m just lucky none of my siblings or college roommates arrested me for domestic violence whenever I tried to wrestle with them in the living room.  But really, any crime committed or attempted in your presence?  Or reasonable cause (even less than 50% certainty!) that someone has committed a felony, whether or not in your presence?  Amazing.

You should know, however, that being a pioneer in the citizen’s arrest movement may come with certain costs.  For example, you will need to spend a lot of time educating the public about your newly-discovered authority.  And you may have to sacrifice personal or family time when you are faced with blatant traffic or disorderly conduct violations.  Also, you will probably lose all your friends…and get beat up…and get yourself arrested…and get sued.  But just remember that every courageous pioneer faces challenges in the beginning!

So, if you decide to take the step to be a citizen enforcer (or if you really, truly, are forced to stop someone from hurting someone else), you should know what the law requires you to do while making the arrest:

• First, you must inform the person you are arresting of 1) your intent to effect a citizen’s arrest 2) your reason for arresting him, and 3) your authority to arrest.  So say something like, “Pursuant to Utah Code, section 77 dash 7, I am arresting you for driving while ill or fatigued (yes, it’s a crime).”
• Second, you cannot use “more restraint than is necessary” to arrest or detain the person.
• Third, you must take the arrested person to the judge in the district court or justice court in the city or county where the offense occurred.

Simple enough.  And interestingly, the police are supposed to do these same things, but often don’t.  You should also be aware that if you detain someone “without the authority of law,” then you could get arrested for unlawful detention, or if the police really don’t like you, kidnapping. But don’t let that stop you.

Ever witness a crime (no matter how small) that made you long to evoke your right to arrest another person?  Or better yet, have you ever actually made a citizen’s arrest? Share your story in a comment below!

When I was a prosecutor handling domestic violence cases, a young woman charged with domestic violence was representing herself and came into court to speak with me. In a polite, slightly pleading tone, she said, “I don’t know why I’m here. I ain’t never domestic violenced no one!” Well, according to Utah law, she had— and chances are, you have too.

She explained that she had gotten into a yelling match with her 17-year-old brother and he threw his drink at her. She chased him to his bedroom where he shut the door. The bedroom door wasn’t very strong and when she hit it with her shoulder, the wood cracked and she made a big dent the size of her shoulder. He didn’t open the door, so she called him some names and walked away. The neighbors heard the yelling and banging and called the police. The police came, asked what happened, and charged the woman with domestic violence assault and criminal mischief (destruction of property).

Most people don’t know that many people are charged with domestic violence in Utah for doing things that aren’t typically seen as domestic violence or domestic abuse. In Utah, a crime is considered “domestic violence” when the underlying crime involves “cohabitants” and includes violence, a threat of violence, an attempt to commit violence, property destruction, or even sometimes disorderly conduct. Utah law defines a cohabitant as anyone 16 years of age or older who:

• is or was a spouse to the other person,
• resides or has resided in the same residence as the other person,
• is related by blood or marriage to the other person,
• has one or more children in common with the other person,
• is living as if a spouse of the other person, or
• is the biological parent of the other person’s unborn child.

This means brothers, sisters, cousins, uncles, roommates, former roommates, former roommates’ friends who lived in your apartment for a month, etc., etc.

In addition to that, each of the underlying crimes is interpreted quite broadly. If you live in Utah, criminal mischief (destruction of property), includes destroying any property that you’ve acquired with your spouse because technically you own the property together. So even if your wife has never touched your cordless drill, but you throw it out the window and break it during an argument…yep, Domestic Violence Criminal Mischief, a class B misdemeanor.

To prove my point, if you have ever done any of the following in Utah, you have committed domestic violence:

• Intentionally or recklessly damaged, defaced, or destroyed any property of your spouse, sibling, parent, roommate, landlord, or even your own property if it was acquired during marriage. (This includes ripping up pictures, denting doors, walls, and cars, breaking phones, ripping clothes, etc.)
• Intentionally or recklessly threw anything at your spouse, sibling, parent, roommate, etc., if it was hard or heavy enough to cause pain, even if it didn’t hit them. (This includes cell phones, basketballs, kitchen spatulas, remote controls, shoes, etc.)
• Intentionally or recklessly grabbed, pushed, or slapped your spouse sibling, parent, roommate, etc., if it caused pain or created a substantial risk of causing pain. (This includes pushing onto the couch, pulling out of a room (if you have to grab hard enough that it causes a risk of any physical pain), or even preventing someone from entering a room you’re in.)

Needless to say, a good number of country music videos involving betrayed women, if they took place in Utah, would be prime candidates for criminal charges. Not to mention shows like I Love Lucy, Everybody Loves Raymond, or any other show where one lover slaps the other (technically only if they’ve lived together or are married).

So, when you were 18, and you got in a fight with your brother or roommate or cousin, if he/she was 16 or older, you committed domestic violence. Or if you ever got into an argument with your spouse and then went outside and broke your pink lawn flamingo because you were mad, you have “domestic violenced” someone.

I’ve often heard that too many criminals get off on technicalities. But in my experience, I think more people get charged or convicted on technicalities than get their cases dismissed. The prosecutor will sometimes say, “I don’t write the laws, my job is to enforce them.” And on the flip side, legislators will say, “We can’t write perfect laws, but prosecutors and judges can discern which cases should go forward.” This means many people who shouldn’t be in the criminal justice system have their lives turned upside down and face stiff penalties because their actions technically meet the definition of domestic violence.
There are many situations where domestic abuse really does occur, and sometimes the law is the best protection for the victims of that abuse. But the unfortunate result of having domestic violence laws that are too strict and too broad is that we end up spending too much time and too many resources litigating the trivial cases, rather than focusing on the cases where the law truly needs to intervene.

Under the law, you cannot write, send, or read a text message while operating a motor vehicle. But this law is about more than just texting. You cannot enter any kind of information into a phone or any other handheld wireless device while operating a motor vehicle. That means no emailing, no dialing phone numbers, no changing your playlist.

Contrary to what The Daily Herald reported, it also means that you cannot enter coordinates into a GPS or search for a Google map. This confusion probably originated in the exception in the law which allows you to look at a GPS (look only—not type). So if you need directions you will have to search the address before you leave your driveway. And, if you read on ksl.com that you can search your contacts while driving, you may find yourself on the side of the road trying to explain that to Highway Patrol. ANY data entry into your phone while the car is moving can get you a ticket.

Talking on the phone and using voice commands are still okay. And if you find yourself in an emergency go ahead and do anything with your phone that needs to be done. For everything else, don’t take the chance. It’s a quick way to make a $100 dollar donation to the government and invite your insurance company to raise your rates for the next 3-5 years.

You can read the whole law for yourself at https://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE41/htm/41_06a171600.htm.

Currently, the law prohibits DUI in three ways:

It is illegal to operate or be in actual physical control of a vehicle if the person

1. Has a blood or breath alcohol concentration of .08 grams or greater at the time of operation or actual physical control;
2. Has sufficient alcohol in the person’s body that a subsequent chemical test shows that the person has a BAC of .08 grams or greater at the time of the test; OR
3. Is under the influence of drugs or alcohol to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely operating a vehicle.

The proposed law, H.B. 303, would only change the third way you can be convicted of DUI. Rather than basing the decision on your ability to safely operate a vehicle it would be based on whether you were slightly impaired. The new text would prohibit operating or being in actual physical control of a vehicle if the person: “is impaired to the slightest degree by alcohol, any drug, any substance, or any combination thereof.”

This is alarming for a couple reasons. First, this law is so vague and overreaching that it opens the door to unchecked police abuse. Second, it instantly turns many innocent law abiding people into criminals without them even knowing.

The law is so vague and overreaching that it opens the door to unchecked abuse of the police power.

I know that some people believe that police are infallible and would not arrest a person unless they are guilty of a crime and they would never abuse their power. However, we know well enough here in Utah that is not the case:

Trooper Steed is fired for making false DUI arrests.

West Valley Police Officer calls out other officers for illegal practices

Trooper advised of right to remain silent after he lies on the witness stand.

An officer who wants to throw their weight around during a traffic stop could easily start building a DUI case against you and quickly arrest you. They could use your driving pattern, speech, motor skills, etc. to support that conclusion. Driving cues that show you might be impaired include failure to signal, turning with wide radius, following too closely, improper lane change (example: signaling for less that 2 seconds before beginning the lane change), improper turn (example: turning into a lane other than the closes one), varying speed, and slow speed. These are common things that many drivers do when they are in a hurry, distracted, or looking for an address. Yet they support a determination that you are impaired.

Additionally, if your driving pattern is combined with any evidence that you have taken medication, the officer could arrest you for DUI. Evidence of using medication could be an admission that you had taken some cold medication or a medication package in sight. If you have an asthma inhaler in your cup holder or you keep nasal spray handy during allergy season the officer could use that evidence to support a DUI arrest and criminal charge. Then you could be facing all kinds of DUI consequences including a driver license suspension, jail, fines, and DUI Attorney fees.

The proposed Utah DUI Law instantly turns many innocent law-abiding people into criminals without them even knowing.

DUI is one of the few laws a person can be breaking without even knowing it. In some instances it is easy to know that someone is so intoxicated that they are either over the legal limit or incapable of safely operating a vehicle. However, in other situations a person might be perfectly safe to operate a vehicle while their BAC is .09 because they have a tolerance to alcohol. In the best case scenario that person may do a mental check-in before they drive and determine that they don’t even feel buzzed. That person could be breaking the DUI law without even knowing it.

This proposed law puts many innocent, otherwise law-abiding citizens in the same situation. The new law criminalizes driving while you are impaired to the slightest degree by any substance. Almost every medication on the shelf in in the pharmacy has some kind of side effect that could impair driving. Consider some of the following common medications:

Albuterol – used to treat asthma; may cause dizziness

Fluticosane – the active ingredient in Flonase; used to treat allergies/congestion; may cause blurred vision, feeling like you might pass out, seeing halos around lights

Prednisone – used to treat Rheumatoid Arthritis; may cause problems with vision, seizure, confusion

Dayquil – Used to treat cold symptoms; may cause dizziness, confusion, hallucinations

Amoxicillin – Antibiotic used to treat common bacterial infections; May cause confusion and unusual thoughts or behavior

This is just a list of five, but there are thousands of medications that could have side effects that would impair driving. If this proposed law passes and you are taking medication you could be driving around committing DUI without even knowing it. It’s not like it hasn’t happened before. Here is a link to a story about a Utah Trooper who arrested a man for DUI. The man, who has cerebral palsy and epilepsy, was riding a motorized scooter on the sidewalk. He had given up his driver license because he has seizures. He answered the trooper’s questions honestly by admitting that he takes medication for his disabilities. After he failed the field sobriety tests, due to his disabilities, the trooper arrested him for DUI. It was later discovered that he had forgotten to take his medication that night.

AAA Utah has offered to help partiers get home safely from their Super Bowl Parties this year. All you have to do is call AAA and ask for a tipsy tow. Here are the details:

Phone: 800-222-4357 (AAA HELP)

Magic Words: I need a tipsy tow.

Hours: 6 p.m. Feb. 3rd to 6 a.m. Feb. 4th

One you make the call, you will receive a free ride and a car tow of up to 10 miles. Others may ride with you if there is room in the tow truck. For those of you who are thinking ahead – No, you can’t make a reservation. You’ll just have to wait to call until you are ready to go home.

Estimates of the cost of a DUI in Utah range from $3,700 to $10,000. Quite worth the few minutes it takes to make the phone call. Utah has one of the lowest rates in the nation of alcohol related crash deaths with only 16 deaths in 2012. Let’s help keep that down by spreading the word that a free tipsy tow is available to those who are partying.

In the unfortunate circumstance that you find yourself charged with DUI in Utah, call an experienced Utah DUI Attorney at 801-990-4200 for a free consultation.

From Intermountain Legal we wish you a happy Super Bowl Sunday. Stay safe and may the best team win!

During transport Bieber asked why he was arrested. The officer stated that he believed Bieber was driving impaired. After arriving at the police station Bieber submitted to field sobriety tests and a breath test. The unofficial report of the BAC was .04.

Justin Bieber is only 19 years old. In Utah, a person who is under the age of 21 is prohibited from driving with any alcohol in their body. If the minor’s BAC is below the DUI limit of .08 then the minor will be charged with Alcohol Restricted Driver (ARD). This will trigger a 1 year driver license suspension and a $1600 fine. Additionally judges usually require the minor to participate in alcohol treatment.

If this case were handled in Utah the government would encounter a few problems. The police arrested Bieber and transported him to the station before having him perform the field sobriety tests. The Worwood case states that an officer doesn’t have probable cause to arrest based only on bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and smell of alcohol. If those characteristics had been combined with failed field sobriety tests, then there probably would have been probable cause. However, the police officers in Worwood transported the suspect, which is a de facto arrest, to do the field sobriety tests, just like the officers did in Bieber’s case. So, without some other source of probable cause, the field sobriety tests, and the breath test may be thrown out. Perhaps his DUI Lawyer will be fortunate enough to find a case like that.