Phone: (435) 628-4411
The Constitution and its amendments place strict limitations on government power. They restrict what law enforcement agents can lawfully do during an investigation and protect individual freedoms from abuse. When law enforcement officers violate a person’s constitutional rights, a defense attorney can file a motion seeking to exclude evidence that was illegally obtained. If the motion is successful, the judge and jury cannot consider the illegally obtained evidence. Excluding illegally obtained evidence as a result of legal rights violations can lead to plea negotiations, a reduction in charges, or dismissal of a criminal case.
The Constitution is intended to protect individuals during criminal investigations against government overreach. In practice, these protections are not always honored, which can undermine the fairness of an investigation. When law enforcement officers violate the law, illegally obtained evidence should not be considered at trial. Knowing common legal rights violations can help anyone understand their rights during interactions with law enforcement agents, especially during a criminal investigation.
One of the most common legal rights violations concerns illegal search and seizure, which the Fourth Amendment protects against. Generally, the police must have a warrant before they can search your home, your person, or your vehicle. Several important exceptions to the warrant requirement exist. But if police should have obtained a warrant and conducted a search anyway, they may have violated a defendant’s constitutional rights.
Important exceptions to the warrant requirement include:
Critically, Fourth Amendment protections only apply to government actors. A private citizen like a security guard who conducts a search may have violated other laws, but they would not have violated the Fourth Amendment.
Miranda warnings have become a required police practice and are intended to advise a suspect of their rights and discourage coercive investigative techniques. During a custodial interrogation, police must advise the suspect that they have the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, that anything the suspect says can be used against them, and that if the suspect cannot afford an attorney one will be provided. Importantly, the requirement to advise a suspect of their Miranda rights only applies when the suspect is in custody and being questioned by the police.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees individuals facing criminal charges the right to an attorney. This protection is especially important during police questioning. When an individual chooses to speak to the police, their attorney can ensure they fully understand the questions being asked, and protect a suspect from accidentally saying something that could later be used to incriminate them.
Another common legal rights violation has to do with coerced confessions. Law enforcement officers are trained to gather evidence during their interactions with a suspect. When questioning a suspect, law enforcement officers can lawfully lie and pressure a suspect into admitting to something they did not do. They may try to intimidate a suspect by yelling, using aggressive body language, making threats, or suggesting things will “be easier” for the suspect if they confess.
A confession can only be used as evidence if it was obtained voluntarily. When police cross a line and a confession is no longer voluntary, a defense attorney can seek to have the confession excluded. Vulnerable individuals, such as minors or those with mental health conditions, may receive additional legal protections.
For evidence to be admissible, the prosecutor must establish that the evidence presented in court is the same evidence that was recovered at the scene of the alleged crime. If law enforcement cannot show they handled evidence properly and that it was not contaminated or tampered with, the evidence should not be considered. “Chain of custody” refers to the documentation that establishes a record of the control, transfer, and disposition of evidence. Challenging the chain of custody can be an effective defense strategy that can help eliminate evidence that might otherwise be used to wrongfully convict a defendant.
Prosecutors occupy a unique role in the administration of justice, and have special duties to act in the interests of justice. Prosecutors may violate a defendant’s rights by withholding exculpatory evidence (information that could be used to undermine the strength of the prosecutor’s case), using coercive techniques to convince a defendant to accept a plea deal, or taking a case to trial when there is a genuine question about the defendant’s guilt.
If you believe your constitutional rights are being or were violated, there are several steps you should take:
The sooner you involve a criminal defense attorney, the better. Involving an attorney early will ensure that you understand your rights and the potential penalties you face. In many cases, involving an attorney early can influence the outcome of the police investigation and help you avoid being charged with a crime.
If you experienced a legal rights violation, it’s essential to have an experienced criminal defense attorney by your side. Terry Law has decades of experience defending individuals charged with crimes in the Utah courts. We provide the time-tested advice, guidance, and advocacy that only an experienced criminal defense law firm can offer. Contact our law office today to schedule a confidential appointment to discuss your situation with our criminal defense lawyer and how we can assist you.
© 2026 Terry Law, Attorneys PLLC
Share