H.B. 89 Use of Polygraph Amendments

What this bill does

The bill would bar law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, and other government officials from asking or requiring a sexual assault victim to take a polygraph, or lie detector, exam. It would limit polygraph use on sexual assault victims in this way, and it was pending in the Senate with a proposed amendment the sponsor opposed.

Plain-English summary written by AI from the sponsor’s presentation in committee and on the floor. Check the official text below.

Your legislators on this bill

Enter your address to see what your own representative and senator did on this bill.

Quotes come from the official recordings' automatic captions, which can mishear words. Speakers and summaries are identified by AI and can be wrong. Use the ▶ links to check the recording.

Take action

This bill's session is over, but your legislators still want to hear from you. Ideas that died often come back next year.

Enter your address to get your legislators' contact information and a ready-to-send message about this bill.

Every vote

• 8 yes, 1 no, 2 absentHouse Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee: vote to approve it · Feb 11, 2026Who voted how
• 66 yes, 1 no, 8 absentFinal House vote · Feb 19, 2026Who voted how
• 3 yes, 2 no, 4 absentSenate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee: vote to approve it · Feb 26, 2026Who voted how
• 27 yes, 2 noFinal Senate vote · Mar 5, 2026Who voted how

Hearings and debates

• Feb 11, 2026 House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (20 turns)

  1. Rep. Angela Romero1:06:21

     Thank you, HB 89. We've heard this bill two times in this committee, one time in judiciary. It got stuck in the Senate last year like many other bills. But this is the use of polygraph, um, polygraph amendments. This bill would limit the use of polygraph on victims of sexual offenses. And I'm going to turn my time over here to Patty and she'll introduce herself.

  2. Patty Johnston, former law enforcement officer1:06:42

     Okay. My name is Patty Johnston. Um, I'm a 30 year law enforcement veteran. I retired in 2023, um, in, uh, 1993. Um, I was hired by the Sheriff's Office, Utah County Sheriff's Office, and I spent 12 years there as a deputy. Um, most of my time there at the sheriff's office. Um, I was a detective in sex crimes. I worked sex crimes primarily against women and children. Um, I helped form the current, uh, Utah County Sex Abuse task force. So I spent quite a bit of time in my career, um, investigating sex crimes. In 2001, I was still with the Sheriff's Office. Um, I attended the Baxter School of Lie Detection, which is an accredited two month program in San Diego. I graduated from that school, and then I was able to get my license here in Utah. The, um, deception detection license. Following that, I, um, conducted about 500 polygraph exams, um, from pre-employment to criminal. I've done tests for prosecutors, for criminal defense attorneys, um, several different types of tests. Um, and I felt like I was proficient, uh, in that area. After 12 years at the Sheriff's office. I Uintah the Utah County Attorney's Office. I was hired by them in the Investigations Bureau. I continued to do polygraphs for some time. Um, my last four years there at the bureau, I was the, the bureau chief. So I do have 30 years worth of experience. Um, and both in sex crimes and in polygraph. Um, I feel like those are two areas that I can, that I can speak to. Um, I prepared a rather lengthy statement, but I'm just going to summarize it. Um, the sympathetic nervous response during a polygraph test that can lead to a show of deception indicated is very similar to the response that a, an alleged sexual assault victim would have while taking a polygraph exam. So the first thing I do with my test is a pretest, um, part of the exam. Um, if I was, um, polygraphing a sexual assault exam, which I would absolutely never do, but if I were, you know, I would start with the pretext exam, um, and have that alleged victim. Give me the, the very nitty gritty details of that assault so that I can formulate the proper question. So from the get go, I am having that alleged victim relive what could be a very traumatic, um, experience in his or her life. So as they're reliving this, and I'm formulating questions, um, that they will very often have a trauma response and they will have a heightened emotional response, crying anger, um, you know, just reliving that whole experience, shame, fear, those traumatic emotional responses that I would see in the polygraph test would look exactly like deceptive responses. So I would, I would never polygraph a sexual assault victim. And I also feel like, you know, I think sometimes people feel like, well, this is the only tool we have with, with victims. But I think that there are better tools in an, um, an investigation involving sexual assault allegations. Um, I think there are better tools that we can use with victims that, or alleged victims that will better, the investigation will also better the information that you get from that, um, alleged victim. Um, so I think that's about, about it on that, That concludes your presentation. That, That concludes my presentation. And just reminding people that this can't be used in a court of law if a polygraph exam is used.

  3. Unknown speaker1:10:52speaker not certain

     Yeah. So I'm just curious, uh, based on your testimony there, uh, did you, do you have an example of what some of those other tools are that would be like an objective uhhuh? You know, Um, I think the best tool is a, um, it's called the Cognitive Interview Technique. Um, it was a technique that was formulated, um, out of UCLA, um, by Dr. Edward Gossman. And, um, there's several prongs of this particular investigate, uh, this investigative technique that helps mine the memory of, um, victims of trauma. And, um, do you want me to go through those techniques? No, I don't know. I mean, it came outta California, so it's probably already suspect. But, uh, other than that I'm from California. Uh, well that probably didn't help your testimony. Okay. No, I'm, I'm curious.

  4. Unknown speaker1:11:44speaker not certain

     So cognitive questioning, would you call it

  5. Patty Johnston, former law enforcement officer1:11:47

     Cogniti your technique? Yes. It, it helps. It, it helps the victim to go through. It's hard to explain in, in 10 seconds. Um, You can do it in 30. Okay. The interview technique, we actually use the exact same technique on, um, police officers who are involved in shootings because they're involved in trauma. They've, you know, the, their mind is blown up when the event occurs. And we really need to kind of reassemble their mind to, to be able to give an accurate account of What happened. You wait to sleep cycles and then you call 'em in And Yes, e exactly. But we use the same interview technique with them as well. So, we'll, you know, we'll just start and, um, just have them go through kind of minute by minute of the whole incident. Um, we will have them kind of recreate the environment. So put yourself back into the environment, you know, what did you see? What did you smell? Were you, and go through all those different steps. Um, and then a really effective step is, um, to give the account backwards. So, you know, some people will prepare, they know what to say, they've got their story down. But when you get to that end of that interview, having them tell the exact same story backwards can be very, very hard for someone who's not telling the truth. So that's just a couple examples of that interview technique that we use that that seems to be very effective. And I think it's far more effective. We Have study data Yes. Compares to Okay. Yes. So a far more effective tool than polygraph.

  6. Committee chair1:13:31

     Sure. Any further questions from the committee for clarifying questions? It's that moment. Okay. Seeing none. Is there anyone here from the public to speak to it? We have a polygraph just outside that door. If you would make sure and submit to that before you testify. It'd be great. I'll be happy To, no, not you. I was trolling the ags office, not you. It's okay. I want Nate on a polygraph. Let's find out. I've taken a couple I know. Questions. Can we ask the questions? I'll ask the questions. Oh, oh, well, let's save that one for Carl. Yeah.

  7. Nate Mutter1:14:24

     Thank you. Chair committee. Uh, Nate Mutter. I'm coming to, uh, as the chair of the Law Enforcement Legislative Committee. Um, I'm, I'm not an expert in this realm, uh, but out of all the investigations I've, I've seen and been a part of and, and seen, screened through our office, uh, and, and again throughout my career, I've, I've never been a part of an investigation that asked the victim of a sex assault to take a, a lie detector test. This would not be a common practice, uh, in, in my opinion, and nor nor best practice. Um, one, one thing that the bill does do is it still allows the victim to request, uh, a, a polygraph test if, if they, uh, would like to do that. Um, but I, I see no issue in, in, uh, not asking the victim. And so, uh, in terms of LELC, we have not discussed the bill this year, but in 2024 and in 2025, we've supported it. So, uh, I can, I can almost assume, we'll, we'll stay the course, um, and, uh, definitely urge the support of the bill, uh, even though it's coming from a Californian.

  8. Committee chair1:15:37

     Hey, thank you. Thank you.

  9. Liz Klc, Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice1:15:44

     Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Liz Kch. I'm the Criminal Justice Policy Director for CCJJ. Uh, we have, uh, supported this bill and, and we appreciate the work that the sponsor has done with us to make clarification with, uh, the agencies under our, our office. And we'd also like to tell you that this is the priority support of the Victim Services Commission, um, as well. So we thank, thank you all, and please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks,

  10. Carl Holland, Statewide Association of Prosecutors1:16:21

      Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Carl Holland. I'm the Executive Director of Statewide Association of Prosecutors, uh, swap his consistently supported this bill. Uh, I think that it's important to recognize that if a victim in the evidence are insufficient to support a criminal charge, uh, we think that it'd be inappropriate to try to use a polygraph examination to try to support that charge. It's not admissible in court. If we don't have enough evidence without it, and we get that evidence in, it's not gonna help us anyways. Uh, we need to be able to rely on admissible evidence, uh, and this bill clarifies that, make sure our victims are protected. So we support this bill.

  11. Committee chair1:17:03

      Is that it? Okay. Is there anyone online? No. Okay. We'll turn to the committee for discussion or action. And I don't see any substitutes or anything on this one. Representative Gwynn.

  12. Rep. Gwynn1:17:16

      Thank you Mr. Chair. Move that we pass out favorably HB 89 use of polygraph amendments.

  13. Committee chair1:17:20

      Its in order. Would you like to speak to it? Uh,

  14. Rep. Gwynn1:17:22

      We have negotiated this years in a row, and it took a long time to actually get into a place where everyone was right. Uh, happy with it. And I don't think we should disrupt that.

  15. Unknown speaker1:17:33speaker not certain

      Yeah. Thank you Mr. Chairman, discussion of the motion. Uh, I'll just mention, I'm glad that, uh, that Nate, Mr. Mu, uh, mentioned that it's still an option if a victim wants to request it. 'cause that was, that's an important part of this for, for those who see the value in that. So thank you. Um, though it's not admissible, we still use it in different contexts Right. For, for a reason. Um, we have, I see. No further questions.

  16. Committee chair1:18:06

      Um, would you like to sum rep representative?

  17. Rep. Angela Romero1:18:08

      Just that this bill's been negotiated for the last three years, and I'm hoping to get it over the finish line. This third, third time's a charm. Hopefully.

  18. Committee chair1:18:16

      There you go. Okay.

  19. Unknown speaker1:18:19speaker not certain

      Uh, thank you Mr. Chair. Yeah. Just to follow up on your comment, right. Admissible in court that may It's not, it's not. We know that. Yeah. However, we can't discount the value of the polygraph as a tool to get information. Right. And I would remind the body or the committee that that information still has to be vetted before it can be used. But it is a valuable evidence collection tool. So, uh, I appreciate the support of the committee.

  20. Committee chair1:18:48

      Thank you. Um, all those in the favor then of passing out HP 89, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Say nay. Nay. All right. Nays, please raise your hand. All right. Representative Strong in the atory.

• Feb 19, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (7 turns)

  1. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)27:31

     I'll spell 89 Yusef Polygraph Amendments by Representative Romero. This bill was served in law enforcement and criminal justice with the vote of 8 1 2 Representative Romero.

  2. Rep. Angela Romero27:43

     Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro tem HB 89 just states that law enforcement, prosecutors, the courts, or other government officials may not ask or require a victim of se a sexual offense to submit to a polygraph exam. That's all the bill does. We pass this ballot out unanimously last session. It just got stuck on the third reading calendar in the Senate. That concludes my presentation.

  3. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)28:04

     Thank you Representative Romero. Discussion to the bill Representative Gwynn.

  4. Rep. Gwynn (name not on roster)28:10speaker not certain

     Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro Tim. Uh, this was actually heavily negotiated bill and it was renegotiated every time we visit to make sure it wasn't changing. And the, what's important here is one that victims are not being compelled to take polygraph tests. We should not be doing that. We typically don't do that. However, it also recognizes that victims have a right to having a say in participating in their case. And so it still allows for a victim if they so desire to participate or ask for a polygraph test. Some of the discussions that we had were surrounding the, uh, admissibility of evidence that's obtained through a polygraph examination. And while it would not be admitted, it doesn't negate its ability as a useful tool to obtain information that can then be investigated and later used as evidence. And so I would ask for the body support on this bill. Thank you.

  5. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)29:10

     Thank you, representative Gwen. Further discussion to the bill. Seeing none, representative Han or Romero for summation.

  6. Rep. Angela Romero29:21

     Yeah, thank you. As the good representative mentioned, this was heavily negotiated. This is a number, it's a top priority bill for A-C-C-J-J. It's endorsed by the Utah Chiefs of Police Association, the Utah Law Enforcement Legislative Committee, swap VVSC, the Utah Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Utah Domestic Violence Violence Coalition.

  7. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)29:42

     Thank you. Representative Romero Voting is open on house bill 89 use of polygraph amendments. Representative Ballard being all present, having voted voting will be closed. House bill 89, having received 66 yay votes and one na vote passes. The house will be transmitted to the Senate for further consideration matter. Meeting clerk

• Feb 26, 2026 Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (44 turns)

  1. Committee chair (Sen. Todd Weiler)38:27

     Thank you everyone. Our first agenda item is, uh, house Bill 89 use of polygraph amendments. Representative Romero, thank you for being here on time. I do plan to go in order unless there's a representative not here. Like if Paul Cutler's not here, we'll just skip all of his bills and put 'em on our next agenda.

  2. Rep. Angela Romero38:49

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Oh, let me turn that on for you. Okay. Thank you Mr. Chair. Uh, we had a long discussion about this last, um, last session. So basically what this bill does is it, um, law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, or government officials, uh, may not ask or require a victim of sexual assault to submit a polygraph exam. And that's the Bill. Okay.

  3. Unknown speaker39:14speaker not certain

     Do, um, do we know if this is a big problem in Utah? Is it happening often?

  4. Rep. Angela Romero39:19

     We've seen it happen. It's not like it's a huge problem, but we wanna make sure we're following best practices. This is a priority bill for the Office of Victim Services. It's supported by CCJJ. This is a compromise Bill. We've been working on this for three years, and every time we get here to the Senate, it passes committee, and then it doesn't make the, the last chapter. So we're hoping this time it does.

  5. Unknown speaker39:41speaker not certain

     And let me ask two or three other questions. Um, so if the law enforcement, if it's a, he said, and they're considering not filing charges because it's like, well, we don't know if we can win this in court. Um, if it's the polygraph that might push the law enforcement or the prosecutors in the favor of filing charges, would, do you really want to take that off the table? Well, There are better practices in which we can get to the truth. And so there are other practices and ways in which to get to that. And so What are the better ones? And I don't know if we have our person who is online, but she, um, I, let me turn to CC jj.

  6. Committee chair (Sen. Todd Weiler)40:27

     Sure. Is Patty online? Okay. Can we, can we check if Patty's online, Patty, she's not online. Do you wanna come up Marlis and I'm gonna turn my time over to Marlis. Okay. Well, we'll, I'll let Marli you don't get, you don't have the time to turn over. That's my decision. Okay. Yeah. Sorry. But I will recognize Marlis 'cause I like it. Can Marlis be part of my, alright, I gotta Say, could she'd be part of my presentation? Thank you. Marlys. Can you answer that question?

  7. Marlesse Jones, Director, Victim Services Commission40:52

     Yes. The, and for brevity, because we have debated this before, but there are other measures, meaning specifically investigation. We train, we have courses specifically for sex assault investigation that are intended to flush out all of the facts, all of the truth of what has happened in these incidences. And those are reliable things that can be used in court that are admissible in court, whereas a polygraph is not admissible in court and is, shouldn't be relied on for, for guilt or innocence for that matter. Um, because it's, it's unreliable as, as you know, it's not been accepted based on the scientific standards in the court process.

  8. Unknown speaker41:31speaker not certain

     I, I am aware. My last question, and, and maybe Ms. Jones, you can help us with this as well. If polygraphs are bad for victims of sexual assault, should we just say, take 'em off the table for all victims of any crime? This bill only focuses on sexual assault. Um, I'm not speaking on behalf of the commission when I say this. As a former prosecutor, I will say, and, and I've had discussions with, with defense, Mr. Burton, where I think we should take him off the table for anything criminal. I think there's a time and a place for them, perhaps more in the civil world where emotions, stress, and trauma does not exist. You know, maybe background checks, something of that sort. But when, when the stakes are this high, when someone is looking at their liberty, liberty or someone has been traumatized, the likelihood of an inconclusive or a failure on a polygraph increases dramatically. Okay. But my point is, absolutely. Victims of sexual assault are traumatized. But are other victims traumatized as well? Yes, they are. Okay. All right. That's all my questions.

  9. Committee chair (Sen. Todd Weiler)42:29

     Yes, Senator Brammer. Senator Brammer has a question. Senator Brammer,

  10. Sen. Mark Brammer42:35

      I, I understand not requiring. Why can it not be asked, particularly if it's on a, i I understand not letting it, making it admissible, but on whether or not to bring the charges. If a polygraph would assist a prosecutor, why wouldn't they be able to ask? I mean, in the same way that, I mean, would you also be opposed to a, a prosecutor asking or a defense attorney, whether they take a case, asking if their client would like to, you know, if the defendant, the accused, would take a polygraph. So why is asking so bad?

  11. Marlesse Jones, Director, Victim Services Commission43:11

      Asking is bad in the case of victims, because most people, if they report a sexual assault, do not expect to be believed. They're fearful of being believed because of historical response to sex assault survivors. And more likely than not, they will say they will do it, and they have no idea what the traumatic response on their body's going to be. And that response could be, in any case, whether it's sex assault, a traffic crash, anything where all of a sudden you revisit that most traumatic moment and your body starts to respond, your heart rate will go up, you're fidgeting, you're nervous, you're sweating. All the things that indicate deception could occur just because of the trauma. And the victims have no idea that that is something that could occur to them. So they may say yes. And in talking with one polygrapher who unfortunately isn't, isn't online, she said, um, she told me, uh, that that victims will fail almost every time because of that factor, which makes it really concerning that we may be relying on something so unreliable to make a decision that is so important to public safety.

  12. Committee chair (Sen. Todd Weiler)44:14

      All right. Thank you. So, oh, go ahead, Senator.

  13. Sen. Brammer44:17

      As a, as a follow up, I guess, why couldn't we ask and, and make sure that it's in clear, bold, underlined print that you are not required to do so, and it may be unreliable, you know, and may and provide that warning for victims. I mean, I, I ha I struggle with the idea that, uh, you know, that a victim is, is not reliable enough to be able to tell their story. You know, or even being asked to tell their story with a polygraph, you know, you can say the polygraph is unreliable. It would not be used in court. It'll only be used for our determination. And that's only in situations where the prosecutor, you know, maybe, maybe has some doubts of their own based on the story. And, and so it's the ask part that bothers me. And I'd rather build protections around how they ask and, and the provisions around informing the victim that they don't have to do it, and making sure that that's clear and taking the pressure off as opposed to just banning asking people. I, I think it's, you know, the eggshell treatment I, I just don't think is right.

  14. Marlesse Jones, Director, Victim Services Commission45:34

      May I respond to that, Mr. Chair? Yes, Please. The, it, it's interesting and, and I don't disagree with, with your perception or expectation or hope that by taking the stress off that could make it easier for a victim in these cases, the problem is not what they cognitively know from the frontal lobe of their brain, where they're functioning from and, and reasoning things out. The problem is going to be the sympathetic co parasympathetic responses of the brain when it is triggered back based on the trauma that they have experienced. They cannot control that. They don't control that. Which is why we have situations where there's PTSD and a variety of, you know, scenarios that is the body responding and reacting without any control, even though someone knows logically, this is not the same thing, this is not happening. This is, you know, a black and white situation. Their body will respond as if they're back in that moment. And that's where the problem becomes, um, significant in influencing a decision maker, whether it's law enforcement or prosecutors in deciding whether or not to prosecute a case. And it, it's based on, on unreliable and, and a and a misreading of those symptoms that are associated with trauma.

  15. Committee chair (Sen. Todd Weiler)46:47

      Any other questions? Senator Brammer? Alright, I think we'll move on. Um, does that conclude your presentation? Yes.

  16. Marlesse Jones, Director, Victim Services Commission46:57

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

  17. Rep. Angela Romero46:58

      I'm sorry for not adding her to my presentation.

  18. Committee chair (Sen. Todd Weiler)46:59

      No, no, that's fine. Thank you Ms. Jones for, um, um, standing in. All right, let me ask, um, the public, are there members of the public, by a show of hands, who would like to testify for against this bill? I have two, three in person. Four, I feel like. Okay. Five in person. I'm gonna cut it at five. How many online? Um, and we have Mr. Mutter online who will probably be wearing a tie. Alright. Um, let's, um, representative, would you mind vacating that chair so we can have two at a time? So I'd like to keep both of these chairs full, and I'd like you to sign in while the other person's talking, so we're not waiting for that. Um, and oh, we just lost Representative Cutler. That's too bad. We'll put your bills on the next agenda, sir. Um, thank you. Thank you.

  19. Dan Strong, Director, Sentencing Commission (for CCJJ)47:46

      Um, all right, Mr. Strong, would you like to start? Sure. Thank you. Dan Strong for CCJJ and the sentencing commission, uh, is, as the sponsor mentioned, the CCJ did support, does support this bill. It's been here a couple times. I, I understand. I think the only thing I'd have to add to the discussion that was already had is that all this would prohibit investigators and prosecutors from asking or requiring a victim to do this. The victim could still voluntarily request a polygraph if they thought it would be helpful. So there, there's sort of a pathway there. Um, and other than that, I, I'd just rely on everything marise conveyed about the kind of, um, evidence science reasons for this. So, thank you. Alright.

  20. Sen. Mark Brammer48:22speaker not certain

      So the victim could ask for one. That was my concern.

  21. Committee chair (Sen. Todd Weiler)48:25speaker not certain

      Yeah, I think so. Okay. Thank you.

  22. Brett Robinson, Chief Policy Advisor, Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office48:27

      Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Brett Robinson. I'm the Chief Policy Advisor at the Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office, and we support this bill as well. I just wanna address a couple of points. Um, one, I don't think, first of all, it's not a, a widespread practice among the prosecutors. In fact, I've never been a part of an office or this has actually been requested of a victim. Um, I have heard of it happening at least two times in Utah. However, um, but I don't think that we would ever do this. And if we did, I can't see that the results of a, um, polygraph would actually influence our decision to file or not to file, because we have to base that on admissible evidence. And a lot of the benefits for doing polygraphs anyway are the interviews and the admissible evidence that it leads to. And it's already been mentioned. They can offer to do one. Um, but we can always do those investigations and those interviews, which do provide the admissible evidence that does impact whether or not we're going to actually file a case. And because of those reasons, we encourage support. Thank you.

  23. Committee chair (Sen. Todd Weiler)49:24

      Thank you. Yes, sir.

  24. Felix Espinoza, Chair, Utah for Rational Sex Offense Laws49:31

      Chair members of the committee. Um, my name is Felix Espinoza, and I am here on behalf of Utah for rational sex offense laws in support of HB 89. This bill does something simple and long overdue, and it prohibits law enforcement prosecutors in courts from requiring or conditioning a sexual assault investigation on whether a victim submits to a polygraph examination on its face. That should be already be the standard, but it is not. And that gap is costing real accountability. The physiological responses that polygraphs measure elevated heart rate, irregular breathing, heightened perspiration are identical to trauma responses experienced by sexual assault survivors. Science cannot distinguish between deception and trauma on a polygraph. That means victims who are telling the truth fail these tests, their cases get dropped and perpetrators walk free to re-offend. Again. This isn't a victim's rights issue alone. It's a public safety issue. When flawed investigation, investigative tools let guilty people escape accountability, our communities are less safe. According to research by the Utah Women and Leadership Project, Utah has a very high rates of sexual assault and very low reporting. In 2022, an update sexual assault among Utah women, they found that just 11.8% of the individuals who have experienced rape or sexual assault in the state reported the crime to law enforcement, implying that nearly 88% of these offenses go unreported. There are many different barriers to reporting, fear of consequences and retaliation, lack of trust in the system, and institution's uncertainty about resources and how to report it. Uh, stigma, shame, and cultural norms, denial and self blame. HB 89 eliminates one of these barriers and brings Utah in line with the science, with professional consensus among law enforcement and victim service providers. And with the basic principle that a survivor's willingness to report a crime should never be weaponized against him, we urge this committee and the Senate to advance it without delay.

  25. Committee chair (Sen. Todd Weiler)51:39

      Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Burton.

  26. Steve Burton, Director, Utah Defense Attorney Association51:44

      Yes. My name is Steve Burton. I am with the Utah Defense Attorney Association. And, um, yeah, as in previous years, we are still opposed to this. And, and the main reason is because, uh, in some cases this is often one of the only things that, uh, a defense attorney can ask for or use in order to try to show that their client may be telling the truth, and that it may be a false accusation. Uh, for example, in cases where my client comes to me and says, you know, uh, we engaged in a consensual relationship, or, I did not do this, this is a false report, um, I will often ask my client, are you willing to take a polygraph examination? And if they wholeheartedly say yes, I will often arrange that. And then I will encourage the detective or the prosecutor to please ask the accuser if they are also willing to take a polygraph examination. And if, if my client, um, if those tests come back favorably and the other person is unwilling to do it, or if they have negative results, it can often indicate that there may be a discrepancy in, in the accusation. And so it's, um, concerning in these types of cases where there aren't independent witnesses that we would eliminate no, uh, any method to be able to potentially try to find out what the truth is. I don't have any problem with the part of the bill that says that the law enforcement officer or the, the prosecutor, uh, has to require a victim to take a polygraph test. But as with Senator Brammer concern, my concern is that they can't even ask. Um, I'm comfortable with, uh, a victim being able to refuse, and I'm comfortable with that not being a requirement of the investigation, but simply being able to ask is my biggest concern.

  27. Committee chair (Sen. Todd Weiler)53:41

      Thank you. We'll go to, uh, Mr. Mudra online. Mr. Mutter, tell us your name, where you live, any organization that you might be representing, and whether you're wearing a tie today,

  28. Nate Mutter, Chair, Law Enforcement Legislative Committee53:56

      You chair committee, Nate Mutter, chair of the Law Enforcement Legislative Committee. Still sick at home in Davis County. Um, not wanting to share, uh, the, the, um, our, our group supports this bill. We've supported it for the last, um, this is the third year in a row. Uh, we've supported it. Um, you know, as you've heard, you know, on science aside as an investigation, uh, he said, she said, cases are the most difficult when we're talking about sex assault cases, uh, especially when we're talking about delayed reporting. Um, that said, if the case came down to, uh, as the chair, um, asked, uh, a lie detector test that can't, uh, have us decide one way or the other, it's not evidence. And we have to base our, our decisions on whether to arrest or charge or whatever the case is on the evidence presented in a case. And, and the, uh, the polygraph is, is not, uh, a piece of evidence that we can rely on, um, to, uh, uh, you know, to bring charges forward to, to bring an arrest forward. Uh, as already suggested, a victim can still ask, um, to, to take the polygraph test. We just cannot, uh, ask the victim. And, uh, that's a, that that'd be a best practice in, in, uh, our community's eyes. Uh, I don't know of any case I've ever seen actually where we've, um, requested, uh, a victim to, to take a polygraph test and then, you know, perhaps determined our case based on that request. So, uh, for those reasons, we would, uh, support the bill and I, and I'm also, uh, free to answer any questions, uh, the committee might have as it pertains to an investigation.

  29. Committee chair (Sen. Todd Weiler)55:44

      Thank you. Mr. Mutter, we have a question for you.

  30. Sen. Mark Brammer55:47

      Thank you. Senator Brammer. Yeah. Uh, Mr. Mutter, if a defense attorney were to ask you to request a victim to take a polygraph test, or at least inquire whether they could, would this law prevent you from conveying that request from the defense attorney?

  31. Nate Mutter, Chair, Law Enforcement Legislative Committee56:06

      Uh, the way, the way I read it, yes. Um, 'cause we can't request it. Um, it doesn't matter who the request comes from. If it comes through law enforcement, we wouldn't be able to ask.

  32. Sen. Mark Brammer56:15

      Yeah. And, and the, the defendant can ask and their counsel can ask directly the victim, correct?

  33. Nate Mutter, Chair, Law Enforcement Legislative Committee56:22speaker not certain

      Uh, I would assume so, yeah. Okay. I would imagine they can ask the, the, the victim should they have contact with the victim,

  34. Sen. Mark Brammer56:28

      but, well, it would violate Their rules as an attorney. Right? Sure. Okay. I would imagine. Alright, Mr. Millard, let me just ask this a little bit unrelated, but, um, um, does your office, or do, do you know if prosecutors ever use the eye detect test? Not the polygraph, but the eye detect test, it measures your p pupil response?

  35. Nate Mutter, Chair, Law Enforcement Legislative Committee56:52

      You know, I, I know that that was, um, uh, coming on scene a handful of years ago. I, I still have not seen that being, uh, being used in a case. Um, I've heard, you know, it being used for pre-employment purposes, things of that nature, but I've yet to see it, um, being used in a case, in a criminal case. That doesn't mean it hasn't. I just haven't seen it.

  36. Committee chair (Sen. Todd Weiler)57:16

      Alright, Thank you very much. We're gonna close the public hearing and bring it back to the Committee for action. Um, Senator Escamilla.

  37. Sen. Luz Escamilla57:28

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Make a motion that we favorably recommend HB 89.

  38. Committee chair (Sen. Todd Weiler)57:35

      All right. We have a motion to favorably recommend the bill.

  39. Sen. Luz Escamilla57:38

      Um, I am seeing that there are a number of states that explicitly bar law enforcement, um, from asking, it looks like Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. Um, so I'm, I didn't know, I didn't know that, uh, that many states had done that. Um, and I guess on the federal level, 34 USC section 10, 4 51 prohibits them from serving, uh, receiving, um, Vic, uh, VAWA stop grants, uh, if they require victims to take polygraph tests.

  40. Committee chair (Sen. Todd Weiler)58:33

      So, um, alright. So discussion to that motion. Other than what I just said. See none. Let's, uh, Senator, uh, sorry. Representative Romero, would you like to sum, I think you summed it very well.

  41. Rep. Angela Romero58:47

      These are just best practices and this is tied to vow funding, but I didn't wanna make that about this, that this year. 'cause we don't know. It's unstable with the federal government, but it's just best practices and there are other ways to get to, to find the truth.

  42. Committee chair (Sen. Todd Weiler)59:00

      Alright, uh, Senator Escamilla wife summation. Alright, let's do a roll call. Vote. Senator Brammer Escamilla. Yes. Musman Pitcher. I And Chair Weiler. I'm gonna vote. Aye. Thank you. Thanks.

  43. Committee chair (Sen. Todd Weiler)59:27

      Um, Senator Musselman, would you mind chairing while I run over to House Business and Labor? Somehow they're through their entire agenda already and are waiting for me.

  44. Sen. Chris Musselman (presiding)1:00:03

      Okay. HB

• Mar 5, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (22 turns)

  1. Rep. Angela Romero47:27

     So what this bill does is it puts limitations on the use of polygraphs on a, a victim of sexual assault. Um, let me just tell you that 20 states have passed a similar bill, including, including states like Arkansas, Georgia, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, West Virginia. This is in, this is supported by CCJJ, swap, UDVC. Um, I, I like this policy. I'm always worried about polygraphs. What I worry about the most is, is intimidation tactics. We're re-victimizing somebody, somebody that's been sexually assaulted. I don't think polygraphs are very, very accurate to begin with. Um, I think it shows a lack of trauma sensitivity by using a polygraph in that situation. Again, we're in a situation where, where a lot of Republican states have adopted very similar language, 27 states have passed similar legislation. With that, I'm open for questions.

  2. Senate President (presiding)48:22

     Senator Brammer. So

  3. Sen. Brady Brammer48:26

     This, this has come before, uh, various committees and it's never gotten this far. Uh, there's a reason this is going further than what, uh, you know, there, when, when the sponsor says similar laws, that's accurate. A lot of them are similar laws. But there's something where this goes further. And there's only eight states that go as far as this. And, and what it, what it does is it does two things. One of 'em is just fine. The other has a real problem. The part that's just fine is the part that says you that a prosecutor may not condition any proceeding or action by the prosecutor's office on the taking of a polygraph. I don't think that we should be putting sexual victims in that position. But the part that it has a problem, that there's only eight states that have gone this far, that I don't think we should go that far, is where it says that a, uh, that a prosecutor may not even ask if the person would be willing to sit for a polygraph. Now, what the other states do that have passed this, the other, you know, the non eight is they say you may ask, but you may not condition the prosecution on, on the, uh, taking of a polygraph. And so, and there are situations where it's appropriate for that to occur. For example, if you have a, uh, a defendant may very well plead into the ca, may, may plead guilty if they believe that the, if the polygraph comes a different, comes back a different way, and the person may say, I don't want to be subject to a trial to cross examination to all of these things. And they may say, I'd be willing to take a polygraph to show this or that, and it's up to the victim. They can say no, and nothing can be conditioned or removed for that. And so with that, I do have a voice amendment. It's a very small voice amendment, and it is on specifically on line 65 of the bill. And it would delete two words. Um, it says where, where it says a law enforcement officer, prosecuting attorney, a court or other government official may not. And here it says, ask or require, and it just deletes the two words. Ask or so it says that the law enforcement officer may not require a victim of sexual offense to submit to a poly poly, uh, graph examination. And so this is a very small adjustment. It still allows the bulk of the policy to go forward. The only thing that this removes is the prohibition on a prosecutor from ever even asking. And so with that, I would submit that voice amendment to line 65 of removing the two words. Ask or

  4. Senate President (presiding)51:19

     Thank you. We have a motion to amend. So Senator Mikel to that motion.

  5. Sen. Michael K. McKell51:26

     Yeah. So my preference would be not to have that language. I think it weakens the bill a little bit. I do appreciate the fact that this is language that that keeps the bulk of the bill intact, but I think it does weaken that. I guess the concern is one of the things we're trying to solve is, is not, not forcing a victim in that situation where they could be re-victimized. I think that could create trauma. So the preference would be, would be not to do that. But I do appreciate that the bulk of the bill would remain intact.

  6. Senate President (presiding)51:53

     Thank you. Now we have discussion on the motion to amend Senator Buss.

  7. Sen. Emily Buss52:02

     Thank you Mr. President. Um, for the amendment, are we going to ask or acquire suspects of sexual assault, uh, to take polygraphs?

  8. Senate President (presiding)52:11

     Senator Brammer?

  9. Sen. Brady Brammer52:12

     Uh, the police can currently ask or they can ask, but they typically cannot require.

  10. Senate President (presiding)52:18

      Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, looking for further discussion on the motion to amend Senator Brammer. Any summation?

  11. Sen. Brady Brammer52:28

      Yeah, just, just briefly. It's one thing I, I do think this, this takes us in the right direction where a prosecutor cannot condition anything on it, but asking someone if they would be willing to take a polygraph test is not re-victimizing anyone. There are situations where it makes sense and they cannot go beyond, uh, they cannot require anything or condition any action by the prosecution on that or condition anything in any way with the remainder of the bill. And so with that, I think this is a very reasonable change that puts us in line with 42 of the 50 states as opposed to only eight of the 50 states on the more extreme version. And so it just moderates this bill a little bit.

  12. Senate President (presiding)53:18

      Thank you. I'm gonna place the motion to amend. All in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed? I'll rule the motion passes. I thought I'd get it either way. So, uh, let's have those that, uh, those in those in favor of the motion to amend, let me make sure I know. Those in favor, in favor of the motion to amend little lobbying on the floor. I don't know. Looking for those, those opposed at the motion to amend. Looks like the charge has been president has been overridden. I rule the motion. Fells.

  13. Senate President (presiding)54:15

      Senator Vickers, uh, Senator Mikel, I mean, uh, or Senator. Look around. Senator Ipson. Then I'll go to Senator Weiler.

  14. Sen. Scott H. Ipson54:24

      Thank you Mr. President. I rise in support of this bill. It's a tool that the Children's Justice Center needs and uses. And I would encourage us to, to vote. Yes.

  15. Senate President (presiding)54:37

      Senator Weiler, do you wanna speak Senator Weiler?

  16. Sen. Todd Weiler54:41

      Yeah. Thank you. I I rise in support of the bill. Um, I will say that, um, I heard this in committee. I, I actually a couple years in a row and, um, the prosecutors that testified said, we don't use this tool. I called my local prosecutor in Davis County today and he said his office doesn't use it. And he doesn't know any prosecutors that do. And I'm not using that argument against the bill. I think we should be on record as saying we, we don't want to retraumatize victims. Um, and, and I do appreciate the house sponsors, um, persistence and advocacy. So whether the amendment passed or not, I was going to support the bill. But I also wanna say, um, as much as I think the bill is necessary, at least to send a, a statement, I don't think it's gonna change things a lot because I, I've been, I've been told that this isn't used a lot anyway, so thank you.

  17. Senate President (presiding)55:31

      Thank you Senator Mikel. Now

  18. Sen. Michael K. McKell55:37

      Thank, thank you for the debate and, and I actually appreciate what Senator Weiler said. I'm glad it's not used, used often. That makes me feel good. But I, I mean, I've always, I I've always been willing to carry this bill for the house. I've always agreed with this policy. I've never liked, I've never liked polygraph in this situation and I, I just urge you to support the bill.

  19. Sen. Michael K. McKell55:57

      Okay, I think I need a motion. I move the bill under suspension of the rules pass.

  20. Senate President (presiding)56:02

      Thank you. And the question is, under suspension of the rules shall house bill 89 pass? Roll call vote.

  21. Unknown speaker56:07

      Senator Vickers Baldy aye. B aye. Brammer bus Aye. Call Moore Escamilla. Fillmore Grover, Then Harper a kins. Ibsen aye. Johnson Juab A. Okay. Mikel Aye. Milner Musman. Aye. Owens pitcher Plum. Aye. Rebe Aye. Sandal Aye. Stevenson Stratton. Aye. Vickers Weiler Aye. Wilson Aye. Winterton Aye. President Adams Aye.

  22. Senate President (presiding)57:14

      House bill 89 Having received 2078 votes, two nay votes, zero being absent passes, this body will be signed by the President. And turn to the house for the signature of the speaker.