Traffic Stop Defense and Illegal Search and Seizure in Utah
When the Stop Was Wrong, the Entire Case Can Change
Traffic Stop Defense in Utah
Most serious criminal cases do not begin with a dramatic arrest.
They begin with a traffic stop.
A lane change. A claimed equipment violation. Following too closely. A moment of hesitation at an intersection. A Utah Highway Patrol stop on I-15. A local officer pulling someone over late at night after leaving dinner, work, or a family event.
What looks like a simple traffic citation can quickly turn into a DUI investigation, a drug case, a firearm allegation, a warrant arrest, or a felony prosecution built entirely on what happened after the lights came on.
That is why traffic stop defense is one of the most powerful forms of criminal defense.
If police lacked the legal right to stop you, detain you, prolong the encounter, search your vehicle, or seize evidence, the entire case may be vulnerable. The strongest defense is often not explaining what officers found. It is proving they should never have found it in the first place.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 14 of the Utah Constitution protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. Those protections are not technicalities. They are often the difference between dismissal and conviction.
At McAdams Law PLLC, Andrew McAdams represents clients throughout Salt Lake County, Davis County, Weber County, Utah County, Summit County, Box Elder County, Cache County, and Tooele County facing charges that began with a traffic stop — DUI, drug possession, distribution allegations, weapons charges, probation violations, and serious felony investigations.
As a former prosecutor with more than twenty years of criminal law experience, he understands how officers are trained to justify stops, how prosecutors defend them, and where those justifications often break down.
The first five minutes of a traffic stop can decide the entire case. That is where the defense should begin.
A Traffic Stop Is Often the First Constitutional Battle
Most people assume the important part of a criminal case begins after the search. That is usually too late.
The real issue is often the moment before the search — why the officer stopped the vehicle in the first place, what justified keeping the driver there, and what legal basis existed for expanding a traffic stop into a criminal investigation.
This is where probable cause and reasonable suspicion becomes one of the most important constitutional questions in the case.
Police need lawful grounds to initiate the stop. They need lawful grounds to prolong it. They need lawful grounds to search. Those are separate legal questions, and prosecutors often try to blend them together so the entire encounter feels inevitable — it is not.
A valid speeding stop does not automatically justify a DUI investigation. A broken taillight does not create permission to search a trunk. Nervousness does not create probable cause for drugs. A refusal to consent does not create suspicion by itself.
The defense must identify the exact moment officers exceeded constitutional limits. Sometimes that moment happens at the initial stop. Sometimes it happens ten minutes later when the original reason for the detention should have ended. Sometimes it happens when police turn a casual question into coercive consent.
That is why these cases overlap directly with criminal investigation defense, motions to suppress evidence, and broader illegal search and seizure defense. The strongest cases are often won by attacking how the investigation started.
If the stop that started your case raises constitutional questions, the time to raise them is now. Call McAdams Law PLLC at (801) 449-1247 or click below to schedule a confidential consultation.
Reasonable Suspicion: Police Need More Than a Hunch
To lawfully stop a vehicle, police need reasonable suspicion — specific and articulable facts suggesting a traffic violation or criminal activity. Not a vague feeling, not a generalized hunch, and not a guess based on appearance.
Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause, but it still requires real facts.
An officer may have lawful grounds for speeding, weaving, a broken taillight, failure to signal, or another identifiable traffic violation. But many serious cases begin when officers use minor violations as entry points for broader investigations involving DUI, drugs, firearms, or outstanding warrants.
That is where defense becomes critical.
Officers often rely on phrases like "the driver appeared unusually nervous," "the vehicle had out-of-state plates," "there was a strong odor of air freshener," or "the travel plans seemed vague." Those explanations are common because they sound suspicious in a report. Courts often disagree.
Nervousness is normal during police encounters. Travel plans are not crimes. Rental cars, interstate travel, and fast-food wrappers do not create constitutional authority.
This is why careful review of the police report and investigation, the officer's stated reason for the stop, and the actual body camera footage becomes so important. Police reports are written to justify the stop. Video often tells a different story.
The question is never whether the officer suspected something. The question is whether the Constitution allowed them to act on it.
Pretextual Stops: When a Minor Violation Becomes a Major Case
Many serious felony cases begin with what looks like a very small reason for the stop.
A claimed lane drift. Window tint. Following too closely. A license plate light. Rolling too slowly through an intersection. A brief touch of the fog line on I-15 late at night.
Officers often use minor traffic violations as the legal doorway for a much larger investigation. This is commonly called a pretextual stop. The real goal may not be the traffic citation at all — it may be drugs, weapons, cash, a DUI arrest, probation status, or a broader criminal investigation.
Under current law, officers are generally allowed to make a stop for a legitimate traffic violation even if they hoped to investigate something else. That does not mean every pretextual stop is valid.
The defense still asks the critical question: did the violation actually happen?
If the alleged lane violation did not violate Utah law, if the equipment issue did not exist, or if the officer's report does not match the body camera or dash camera footage, the entire stop may fail.
This is especially common in major drug crimes defense, where highway interdiction teams rely heavily on minor traffic violations to create the first legal contact. The issue is not whether officers were suspicious. The issue is whether the Constitution allowed the stop they chose to make.
The Rodriguez Rule: When a Legal Stop Becomes Illegal
Even if the initial stop was lawful, police cannot keep someone detained indefinitely hoping to find a reason for a larger case.
This is where one of the most important traffic stop defenses comes into play: the rule from Rodriguez v. United States.
The Supreme Court made clear that a traffic stop must remain tied to its original mission — writing the citation, checking license and registration, confirming insurance, and handling the reason for the stop itself. Once that work is complete, or reasonably should be complete, the detention must end.
Police cannot extend the stop just to fish for more evidence unless they develop independent reasonable suspicion of a separate crime.
This matters constantly in Utah. An officer finishes the warning but keeps asking travel questions. A trooper delays writing the citation while waiting for a K-9 unit. Backup is called for reasons unrelated to the original stop. The driver is kept roadside while the officer tries to build a drug case from ordinary behavior.
That extra time may be unconstitutional.
This is often called the "Rodriguez moment" — the point where a normal traffic stop turns into an unlawful detention. In serious cases involving drug defense, DUI and alcohol offenses, and motions to suppress evidence, identifying that moment can be the difference between dismissal and conviction.
A stop does not become legal simply because evidence was eventually found. Police must still follow the Constitution on the way there.
DUI Investigations That Begin With a Traffic Stop
Most DUI cases begin long before field sobriety tests or a breath machine. They begin with the reason for the stop itself.
An officer claims lane travel, delayed braking, speeding, drifting, or some other driving behavior suggesting impairment. From there, the stop expands into questions about alcohol, where you have been, what you drank, whether you will perform field sobriety testing, and whether chemical testing will follow.
If the original stop was unlawful, everything after it may be vulnerable — officer observations, roadside statements, field sobriety testing, breath results, blood draw warrants, and even refusal allegations depending on how the detention developed.
This is why traffic stop defense and DUI and alcohol defense are inseparable in many cases.
Sometimes the strongest DUI defense is not arguing about the BAC result. It is proving the officer should never have been conducting a DUI investigation in the first place. Other times the issue is how the stop expanded — a simple speeding stop does not automatically justify a full impairment investigation. Officers still need lawful grounds to prolong the detention and escalate the encounter.
These same constitutional questions often lead directly into motions to suppress evidence, where the goal is not negotiating around bad facts but removing evidence that should never have existed.
The science matters. But the legality of how police got there matters first.
Drug Interdiction Stops on I-15 and Highway Enforcement
Utah's interstate corridors are heavily used for drug interdiction.
I-15, I-80, and other major routes are frequent targets for Utah Highway Patrol and interdiction units looking for narcotics, cash seizures, firearms, and distribution cases. These stops often begin with small alleged traffic violations and quickly turn into much larger investigations.
The pattern is familiar. An officer claims a minor lane issue. Questions shift quickly to travel plans, hotel stays, cash, rental vehicles, luggage, work schedules, and whether anyone else has used the vehicle. A K-9 is requested. The stop stretches longer. A search follows. Suddenly the case is no longer about a turn signal — it is a felony drug prosecution.
Interdiction cases are built on officer training designed to interpret ordinary behavior as suspicious. Nervousness, fast-food wrappers, energy drinks, air fresheners, travel from another state, and inconsistent answers are all commonly used to justify prolonged detention. Most of those things describe ordinary travel.
Courts know that.
That is why careful review of the stop, the timing, and the officer's claimed reasonable suspicion is often more important than the drugs themselves. If the detention was unlawful, the prosecution's strongest evidence may never reach trial. This is also where asset forfeiture defense often becomes part of the same case — cash seized during an interdiction stop deserves the same constitutional scrutiny as the drugs.
Before fighting the possession or distribution allegation, the defense should first ask whether the stop itself was constitutional.
K-9 Sniffs and the Problem of Automatic Probable Cause
Drug-sniffing dogs are often treated like automatic probable cause. Prosecutors frequently present a K-9 alert as though it ends the constitutional discussion — if the dog alerted, they argue, the search was justified. It is rarely that simple.
First, the K-9 deployment itself must be lawful. If officers prolonged the traffic stop without independent reasonable suspicion just to wait for a dog, the alert may be the product of an unlawful detention and subject to suppression.
Second, the dog itself is not beyond challenge.
K-9 units have training records. They have false alert histories. They have certification issues. Handlers can unintentionally influence behavior. Some dogs are far less reliable than police reports suggest.
A dog is not a machine. It is an investigative tool operated by a human being.
If the State wants to rely on a K-9 alert as the reason for a full vehicle search, the defense should examine how that alert happened, how often the dog was wrong, and whether the handler's conduct created the result.
This becomes especially important in search warrant challenges, because K-9 alerts are often later used to support warrant affidavits for homes, phones, or broader investigations. What begins with a roadside stop can quickly become a much larger constitutional fight.
Weapons Charges and Firearm Searches During Traffic Stops
Traffic stops frequently become firearm cases.
A weapon found during a stop may lead to allegations involving unlawful possession, restricted persons, concealed firearm violations, probation violations, or more serious felony charges depending on prior history and the surrounding facts.
Many clients assume that once a firearm is found, the legal issue is only about possession. Often, the stronger issue is the search.
Why was the vehicle searched in the first place? Was the stop lawful? Was the detention prolonged without justification? Did officers rely on invalid consent? Was the firearm discovered during a lawful protective frisk, or did the officer exceed the legal limits of that search?
A roadside pat-down is not unlimited. Police may conduct a limited frisk for weapons only when they have reasonable suspicion that someone is armed and dangerous. That does not create automatic permission to search pockets, containers, or the entire vehicle for evidence unrelated to officer safety.
This is where traffic stop defense often overlaps with weapons and firearms defense, violent crime defense, and broader illegal search and seizure defense strategy. A firearm case is often won or lost before anyone argues about gun ownership. The first question is whether police had the right to find it at all.
Consent Searches: The Search You "Agreed" To
One of the most common ways police avoid warrant issues is simple: they ask for permission.
"Do you mind if I take a quick look?"
Most people say yes because the situation feels intimidating, confusing, or unavoidable. They assume refusing will make things worse. They want the stop to end. They believe cooperation will protect them — often, it does the opposite.
Consent must be voluntary to be valid. If the situation was coercive, if multiple officers created pressure, if the driver was not truly free to leave, or if the request sounded more like a command than a choice, the legality of that consent may be challenged.
A person standing on the side of the freeway at night, surrounded by officers, while patrol lights flash behind them is not experiencing an ordinary conversation. Courts understand that "yes" under pressure may not be true voluntary consent.
The best practical advice is simple: politely say you do not consent to any search. That refusal matters. If police search anyway, the refusal becomes important evidence in motions to suppress evidence and illegal search and seizure litigation.
The goal is not confrontation. It is protection.
Vehicle Searches Are Not Unlimited
Even when police have some legal basis to search, that does not mean they can search everything.
The scope of the search matters. If consent was limited to the passenger area, officers may not automatically have authority to search locked containers or unrelated personal property. If probable cause relates to one specific issue, that does not always justify a complete search of every compartment, bag, or device in the vehicle.
Passengers also have independent privacy rights. A purse, backpack, briefcase, or personal container belonging to someone else may raise separate constitutional issues, especially when officers assume everything inside the car belongs to the driver.
Phone searches are even more restricted. Finding a phone during a traffic stop does not create automatic permission to search its contents. Accessing messages, photos, cloud accounts, or app history usually creates a much more serious constitutional issue — one that often overlaps with search warrant challenges and, in some cases, a Franks hearing if officers used misleading information to obtain the warrant.
Police often describe a search broadly after the fact. The Constitution requires much more precision than that.
Unmarked Vehicles and Evolving Utah Enforcement Issues
Traffic enforcement law continues to evolve, and recent changes in Utah have created new issues involving how routine stops are conducted.
In some circumstances, restrictions now apply to the use of unmarked vehicles for general traffic enforcement, particularly when agencies use those vehicles for routine patrol rather than specific investigative purposes. These issues must be analyzed carefully — what type of vehicle was involved, what agency conducted the stop, and what authority applied under the specific statute.
This is not a blanket rule that makes every stop by an unmarked vehicle invalid. But it can create important questions.
If a routine traffic stop began through enforcement methods that did not comply with statutory requirements, that issue may become part of the broader defense strategy. Combined with constitutional concerns about reasonable suspicion, prolonged detention, or unlawful search, it may strengthen suppression arguments significantly.
The goal is not forcing a technical argument where none exists. It is identifying whether the government followed both constitutional and statutory limits when the stop began — the same disciplined review that separates strong defense from reactive defense.
What To Do Immediately After a Traffic Stop Leads to Charges
Once a traffic stop turns into criminal charges, people often make the same mistake: they focus only on the accusation and ignore how the stop happened. That is backwards.
The first priority is preserving what occurred. Body camera footage, dash camera footage, dispatch records, roadside observations, search requests, consent conversations, K-9 deployment timing, and officer statements matter enormously. These details disappear quickly if no one demands review.
Write down what happened while memory is fresh. What reason did the officer give for the stop? Were you told why you were being detained? Did officers ask to search the vehicle? Did they say you were free to leave? Was a K-9 unit involved? Were you waiting long after the original citation should have been finished?
These details often become the foundation of a suppression motion later.
The second priority is avoiding unnecessary statements. Do not assume explaining yourself to police after the fact helps. Do not contact officers trying to "clear things up." Do not make admissions to employers, probation officers, or licensing boards without understanding the legal consequences.
This is especially important in cases involving DUI and alcohol offenses, major drug crimes, and professional licensing concerns where a single statement can create damage far beyond the traffic citation itself.
The stop may be over. The constitutional fight is just beginning. Call McAdams Law PLLC at (801) 449-1247 or click below to schedule a confidential consultation.
Sentencing Exposure and Collateral Consequences
Most people pulled over for a routine traffic issue are not thinking about felony exposure. By the time they understand how serious the case has become, the investigation has often already built its foundation.
What begins as a traffic stop can produce charges at any level — a misdemeanor DUI, a class A misdemeanor drug possession, a second-degree felony distribution allegation, a weapons charge that triggers prior conviction enhancements, or a conspiracy case built from contacts made during the stop. The sentencing exposure depends on what was found, what charges are filed, and what prior history exists. In serious drug and firearms cases arising from traffic stops, first-degree felony exposure with mandatory prison time is not uncommon.
The collateral consequences often reach further than the sentence itself. A DUI conviction affects professional licenses, CDL eligibility, insurance, and driving privileges for years. A drug distribution conviction can affect housing, employment, immigration status, and firearm rights permanently. A weapons charge can trigger restrictions that survive long after probation ends.
Asset forfeiture creates a separate financial crisis — cash, vehicles, and other property seized during a traffic stop can be pursued by the government in parallel civil proceedings, sometimes even when criminal charges are reduced or dismissed.
This is why defense strategy must account for the full picture from the beginning. Understanding the criminal court process and every consequence that flows from different charge levels allows decisions to be made from strategy rather than fear.
The goal is not simply surviving what happened on the roadside. It is protecting everything that comes after it.
Traffic Stop Defense Across Northern Utah
Traffic stop cases move differently depending on the corridor, the agency, and the county handling the prosecution.
I-15 and I-80 interdiction cases are handled primarily by Utah Highway Patrol, which operates under specific enforcement patterns and training that differ significantly from local patrol agencies. Salt Lake County prosecutes a high volume of traffic-stop-originated DUI and drug cases and tends to move quickly, with prosecutors who are experienced at defending stops — which means constitutional challenges must be precise and well-prepared before they are filed. Davis County and Weber County cases often involve local agency stops where affidavit quality and officer training vary more significantly, creating additional suppression opportunities. Utah County approaches DUI and drug cases originating from traffic stops more aggressively than surrounding counties, with less flexibility in plea negotiations absent real evidentiary pressure.
The judge matters. The prosecutor matters. The agency that built the stop matters. A suppression argument that works in one courthouse may need to be framed differently in another. Understanding those dynamics before the motion is filed is part of building a challenge that actually succeeds.
Whether the case involves a highway interdiction stop in Tooele, a DUI investigation in Ogden, a K-9 search in Provo, a weapons allegation in Layton, or a drug stop anywhere across Northern Utah — the constitutional defense must fit the actual courtroom handling the case.
Strategy does.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can police pull me over for a very minor traffic violation?
Yes — but the fact that the violation is minor does not eliminate your constitutional protections. Police can lawfully initiate a stop for small traffic issues such as speeding, a broken taillight, lane travel, window tint, following too closely, or failure to signal if there is a legitimate legal basis for the stop. What matters is whether the violation actually occurred and whether the officer can articulate specific facts supporting it.
Many serious criminal cases begin with exactly these kinds of minor allegations because officers use them as the doorway for larger investigations involving DUI, drugs, firearms, or warrants. The mistake is assuming that because the reason sounds small, the stop must be automatically valid — it is not. If the claimed violation did not actually happen, if the officer exaggerated what occurred, or if body camera footage does not support the report, the entire case may become vulnerable.
Do I have to answer questions about where I am going or what I was doing?
Usually no. During a traffic stop, you generally must provide identifying information such as your license, registration, and proof of insurance. That does not mean you are required to answer broader investigative questions about travel plans, where you were coming from, whether you have been drinking, who owns the vehicle, or what is inside the car.
Officers often ask these questions because they are trying to build reasonable suspicion for a larger investigation. Casual conversation can quickly become evidence used to justify prolonging the detention or requesting a search. Remaining calm, polite, and brief is often the safest approach. The right to remain silent applies long before formal arrest, and protecting that right often becomes one of the strongest parts of the defense later.
Should I ever consent to a vehicle search?
In most cases, no. If police have legal authority to search, they will search whether you agree or not. Consent mainly helps officers avoid later constitutional challenges by claiming you gave permission voluntarily. Most people consent because they feel pressured, nervous, or believe refusing will make them look guilty. Refusing consent does not create probable cause — it simply preserves your rights.
The best response is calm and clear: "I do not consent to any searches." That statement matters. If officers search anyway, your refusal becomes important evidence in later suppression litigation. It helps establish that the search must be justified by actual law rather than claimed permission. Many of the strongest traffic stop defenses begin because someone politely refused consent and forced the State to defend the legality of the search.
The goal is not confrontation. It is protection.
Can police keep me on the roadside while waiting for a drug dog?
Not automatically. Police may only keep you detained for the time reasonably necessary to handle the original reason for the traffic stop — writing the citation, checking license and registration, confirming insurance, and addressing the initial violation. They cannot simply extend the stop to wait for a K-9 unit unless they develop independent reasonable suspicion of a separate crime.
This is the rule from Rodriguez v. United States, and it is one of the most powerful defenses in Utah traffic stop cases. If an officer delays finishing the citation, keeps asking unrelated questions, or waits for backup and a dog without lawful justification, that extra detention may be unconstitutional. If the K-9 alert came after that unlawful delay, the search and the evidence may be subject to suppression. The issue is not whether the dog alerted — it is whether police had the legal right to keep you there long enough for the dog to arrive.
Can an illegal traffic stop really get my case dismissed?
Yes — and often more than people realize. If police violated the Fourth Amendment by making an unlawful stop, prolonging the detention without legal justification, or conducting an unconstitutional search, the court may suppress the evidence obtained from that violation. That can include drugs, firearms, cash, DUI evidence, field sobriety results, statements made during the stop, and evidence found later because of that original detention.
This is called suppression — and it is often described through the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. If the original stop was unconstitutional, the evidence that grew from it may be excluded as well. In many cases, once that evidence is removed, the prosecution has little left. Sometimes charges are dismissed entirely. Sometimes felony charges are reduced dramatically. The strongest defense is often not explaining the evidence. It is proving the government should never have had it.
What if the officer says they smelled marijuana or alcohol?
That issue requires careful analysis because odor alone is often treated more confidently than it should be. Police frequently use alleged odor as the reason to expand a stop into a DUI investigation or full vehicle search. Prosecutors often present it as automatic probable cause. Real cases are usually more complicated.
Odor is subjective. It cannot be measured, photographed, or independently verified the way video can. Officers may disagree. Passengers may be involved. Medical cannabis issues create additional complications. Residual odor does not necessarily prove present criminal activity. In alcohol cases, odor does not prove impairment — it may justify questions, but it does not automatically justify arrest or conviction.
"Smell" is not the end of the case. It is often the beginning of the constitutional challenge.
What is the Rodriguez rule and why does it matter?
The Rodriguez rule comes from Rodriguez v. United States, a United States Supreme Court decision that limits how long police can extend a traffic stop beyond its original purpose. The Court held that a stop must remain tied to its mission — addressing the traffic violation — and cannot be extended even briefly without independent reasonable suspicion of a separate crime.
This matters in Utah because highway interdiction and drug enforcement units routinely delay traffic stops to allow time for a K-9 unit to arrive or for additional questioning. If that delay was not justified by independent suspicion, the detention was unconstitutional — and any evidence discovered after the Rodriguez moment may be suppressible. Identifying exactly when the stop exceeded its lawful purpose is often the most important factual question in drug and DUI cases that begin with a traffic stop.
Can police search my car if they find something in plain view?
Sometimes — but the plain view doctrine has limits that prosecutors often stretch. Plain view allows officers to seize evidence that is immediately apparent as contraband and is observed from a location where the officer has a lawful right to be. It does not automatically authorize a broader search of the entire vehicle.
If an officer sees what appears to be contraband in plain view, that may create probable cause for a search. But the item must actually be visible without any manipulation or search, the officer must be lawfully present at the location, and the incriminating nature of the item must be immediately apparent — not something the officer inferred after looking more carefully. Many plain view claims are overstated in reports. Body camera footage often shows a very different sequence of events than what the officer described.
What if I was a passenger, not the driver?
Passengers have independent constitutional rights that are separate from the driver's. A passenger can be detained during a traffic stop, but the stop's legality as to the passenger is a distinct question from whether the driver was lawfully stopped. If officers want to search a passenger's belongings, they generally need independent justification — the driver's consent does not automatically extend to a passenger's personal property.
Passengers are also frequently charged alongside drivers when drugs, firearms, or other evidence is found in a shared vehicle. Proving that a passenger had knowledge of and control over contraband is a separate legal question, and proximity alone is not enough. If you were a passenger in a vehicle where evidence was found, the defense must examine not only whether the search was lawful but whether the evidence can actually be attributed to you specifically.
Does dashcam or body cam footage help my defense?
Very often, yes — and it should be requested and preserved immediately. Body camera footage frequently contradicts police reports in ways that matter enormously for suppression litigation. Officers may describe a traffic violation, odor, nervousness, or consent conversation very differently than what the video actually shows. Dashcam footage from the patrol vehicle often captures the lead-up to the stop and the initial contact in ways that challenge the officer's stated basis for the detention.
This footage must be requested and preserved quickly. Some agencies retain it for limited periods before it is overwritten. Defense counsel should demand preservation as soon as possible after the stop occurs. Footage that shows no lane violation, no observed traffic infraction, or a consent request that sounded more like a command than a choice can become the foundation of a successful suppression motion — and sometimes the most important evidence in the entire case.
Your Defense Starts With the Stop
A traffic stop feels small in the moment.
But for many people, it becomes the moment everything changed — criminal charges, license consequences, professional risk, family stress, financial pressure, and fear about what comes next.
The State often wants those cases to feel automatic. Drugs were found. A DUI investigation happened. A firearm was recovered. The report is written as though the outcome is obvious.
It is not.
Traffic stop cases are constitutional cases first.
Before anyone argues about guilt, the defense should ask whether police had the right to stop the vehicle, prolong the detention, request the search, deploy the K-9, seize the evidence, or expand the encounter into a larger criminal investigation — that question changes everything.
Whether the case involves DUI, highway drug interdiction, a weapons allegation, or a broader felony investigation, the strongest defense often begins with the stop itself.
McAdams Law PLLC represents clients across Salt Lake County, Davis County, Weber County, Utah County, Summit County, Box Elder County, Cache County, and Tooele County in traffic stop defense, illegal search and seizure, suppression hearings, and high-level criminal defense built around protecting your future from the beginning.
Call McAdams Law PLLC at (801) 449-1247 or click below to schedule your confidential consultation.
Waiting is not a strategy. It is a cost.