H.B. 158 Unlawful Tracking Amendments: transcript

So, uh, Senator Vickers, thank you for hearing, uh, the hearing. Me. If you look on Amazon, you can buy four tracking devices like Apple, it, uh, tags, but they're even cheaper. $30 for four of 'em. Um, I mean, you could have bought them and shared them. That would've been courteous. I mean, not, we can't officially ask that, but I appreciate that. 30 bucks. I just am trying to say it's very easily accessible and, Uh, I And they're not the ones that would tell your iPhone that you're being tracked right now? No. Like that? Don't Think so. Okay, go Ahead. I'm not an expert in them. I've never actually purchased them. If I did, it would be to find my car in a crowded parking lot. But, uh, they, they can be used. Uh, they, they, not only are the tags available and inexpensive, but there are increasing numbers of devices in particular motor vehicles that have built-in tracking devices. And, uh, this what this build, we already prohibit tracking another adult through their vehicle, putting a tracking device in someone else's vehicle. This expands the, the, uh, criminal penalty to prevent putting that on somebody's, uh, personal property. So, uh, the alleged counsel's office found me some, uh, examples nationally of people finding, uh, tracking devices in children's toys when they come home from a playground or just finding 'em in a coat pocket after a dinner out with friends. So this prevents putting it on anybody else's property, uh, and using the tracking device, uh, installed on a vehicle. If the other adult is non-consenting, it lets married people do it, uh, to each other. It lets, uh, parents, uh, track their children. Um, but it does expand that penalty if you're doing it to someone else's children or a non-consenting adult. And then, uh, also allows some civil penalties. Um, and this, uh, is supported by the statewide Association of Prosecutors, CCJJ. And, uh, I don't, I'm not aware of any stakeholder not supporting it. Basically, it just sends one message, which is you got no business tracking as a private individual tracking a non-consenting adult or someone else's children. And that, uh, concludes my presentation.

Thank you. Uh, my name is Michelle Palmer. I am the president of the Private Investigators Association, and I just wanna simply say we support the bill. Thank you very much and appreciate you running the Bill. Thank you.

Yeah, I, I just gotta clarify. So if, if, let's say this is only, only for a person, not necessarily a vehicle, right? Or no,

It, it expands the, uh, coverage for a built-in tracking device in a, in a vehicle. Right now, the law prevents you putting an air tag into someone's vehicle, but this would prevent you using, um, the built-in device if it's not your, uh, consenting adult or family member. So Right now it's already illegal to put a a, an air tag Into an air tag in a car. It's not illegal to put it in a child's backpack or a coat pocket at a,

when you're out to dinner with friends. If, if You were, if you owned a product, let's say you're leasing vehicles or, or renting cars, you could put air tags in cars that you were renting to somebody and that wouldn't be Illegal. The owner of the vehicle, yeah.

There is an allowance for that Senator, and you're catching me a little cold. There's an allowance for the owner of the vehicle to track the vehicle.

Okay. So if you're renting it out to somebody, you're allowed to do that. I, I'm not, uh, objecting to it. I just wanted to clarify. I'm not catching things here that we didn't mean to.

So, and there was, we did a house amendment to, uh, if your children age out and turn 18, you can keep tracking 'em until they tell you they're not consenting and divorcing people can give notice that they don't want the other person to track. So what I'm tracking on my kids, and they're still 24 and 25 on my phone with The phone. As long as they don't notify you, they don't want you to do it, you're allowed to. Okay.

Alright. Thanks. Well, and you say it's not illegal and I, I, I, I, I, I wanna say you're correct, but I, I also will say, I do think it would, um, give rise potentially to a, the issuance of a civil stalking injunction. So that's not a, a crime. But then once the stalking injunctions issued, then the violation of the injunction would be a crime. So Yeah.

Um, I move that we pass out with the favor. Recommendation first sub house bill 1 58 to the full body of the Senate.

Thank you, Ms. Chair. Committee members, um, this bill concerns, um, the issue of the increased prevalence of tracking devices. I looked on Amazon today. You can buy four Apple tags for $70, and there's some knockoffs for less than half of that, less than $10 a piece where you can drop that in somebody's car or backpack and track where they go. It's a great idea for keeping track of your lost keys. Or if you can't find your car in the parking lot, I find it's also effective to hit the panic button and hear the alarm, and you can go find your car that way, the ho honking horn. But, uh, anyway, uh, the, uh, currently we prohibit tracking motor vehicles that are not your own. And there's kind of a gap in the statute. There's some creepy, uh, stories that have emerged in the press and other states in law enforcement in Colorado, there was a, a family that found a tracking device in a child's electronic toy car after they spent time in a park. Um, a woman was, uh, arrested for placing a GPS tracker on a teddy bear belonging to a romantic partner, a former romantic partner. Other parents have found tracking devices in backpacks coming home from school or, uh, clothing articles in checked, uh, in co in coat rooms and stuff like that. So there's one big idea behind this bill, and that is that you should not be tracking, uh, other people's children, and you should not be tracking non-consenting adults that aren't in your family. And, uh, as I started to mention, the state law already prevents, uh, prohibits placing tracking devices in motor vehicles. This extends that to personal property other than motor vehicles. So a backpack or someone else's clothing, or an airplane or a, or a bicycle or something, these are so easily dropped into place. Um, and then, uh, also it prevents taking advantage of using a built in app in a device. So, uh, modern, uh, cars have built in tracking things that people can keep track of each other, and we don't want that happening. For example, in the case of a divorce, if a, if a, if a, if a former spouse is on notice that you don't want 'em tracking your vehicle anymore, you should be allowed to do that. So this makes the, uh, doing those things. Uh, a class A misdemeanor also provides a civil cause of action. So you can sue somebody and gives a penalty of, uh, $50 a day or $5,000, whichever adds up to the greater, because it would be hard to prove damages. But I think that's pretty highly offensive behavior to do that to somebody in a non-consenting situation. But it's hard to prove that you've lost money doing that. So it gives you a, a remedy in that sense. And, uh, we have notified, uh, stakeholders in this realm, uh, CCJJ, the Sentencing Commission Statewide Association of Prosecutors. So we've taken some feedback in some cases and tried to make this a better bill. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you, representative.

Hello again. Megan Mills with the Statewide Association of Prosecutors. Um, we are in support of this bill. We think it's a good one. It, it certainly is something that we've seen and we're grateful for the sponsor for, for bringing it forward. We have a question for you. It looks like Representative Ballard.

Yes. Thank you. How is this enforced? How do you prove that somebody has been tracking you? How, how do you prove that?

Um, uh, like any case, there are going to be a lot of different ways. Um, certainly the report would likely first come to law enforcement. And, um, I think it, it really depends on the circumstances. You could end up with some type of investigative subpoena or a search warrant to find out what kind of data was available, where the, where the item came from. It really, every case is gonna be different. So it depends on who's reporting it. If it's, for example, if it's a victim who finds a device in her purse and, um, suspects that it's a tracking device, at that point, law enforcement has ser several different ways they can go about investigating. I do think it could be challenging at times, um, but it really is gonna depend on the case. Certainly, if there's a suspect, there would be an attempt to interview them. Um, yeah, just like any case, it's gonna be specific to those facts.

Thank you. Chair Committees. My name is Liz Kels. Um, I am the Criminal Justice Policy Director at CCJJ. We do appreciate the work that the sponsor has done with us on, on improving the bill, and we support the substitute bill. Mr. Chair, if I may address the question, please. Um, I think, uh, I, I would be hesitant to tell you anything concrete without working with some of our law enforcement partners. So let me get back to you on that.

Um, I think if, if I was a victim of this, I would definitely want some way to prosecute it. And, uh, perhaps sometimes with other, uh, investigations, they may find, uh, these, some of the, the digital tracking of, of what's been done. So I think it's, it's, I hope it's helpful to have a tool for law enforcement to be able to, uh, um, really capture those, those, uh, wrongdoers. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to bring up that I have had a constituent continuously message me of having this offense done to her and by an ex-spouse, and I am really grateful that you brought this bill forward. Thank you so much. I'm very supportive. I, since this is a discussion or action part, I, yeah, there's, uh, very little as, uh, unnerving as the realization, you know, when you find something like that, um, especially related to your kids, um, I can only imagine in a DV situation what that would be like as well. Um, I don't know that this really does it. I know. I mean, it's not like we're giving a lot more resources to our detectives to be able to have extra time or more detectives to enforce this stuff, but, uh, appreciate, I appreciate the effort nonetheless.

It's a good step. I, there are more things that could be done down the road. I mean, ideally if you found one, you could take it to law enforcement and say, who's using this device on me? I don't think we're there yet. Um, and it does have exceptions for parents tracking their kids and things where we obviously wanna allow it, but thank you.

Yeah. I'll go ahead and place the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, colleagues, there's an increased, uh, prevalence of tracking devices. They start at, uh, $30 for a four pack. Those little tags you can put on your key chain or in your car to find it when you're trying to lost at the mall, trying to find your car. And, uh, those are great ideas to do with it, but there's some creepy uses that are coming up according to some research. I ask lrc Gs our office of, uh, alleged counsel to look into. There's some cases nationally where of a family, for example, found a tracking device in a child's, uh, electric toy car after they spent time in a park. Um, a a woman found a tracking device in a purse after dinner out with friends, and another one found a a tag in a coat pocket after, um, being out with friends. So those kind of things shouldn't be happening. Um, obviously they're, they're appropriate to track your own kids' backpacks or your spouse. Uh, but some creepy things could be done. And so there's one idea behind this bill, which is you should not be tracking other non-consenting adults and you should not be tracking other people's children. So, uh, we already have a statute that prevents putting these in other people's vehicles, but this bill expands that to, uh, encompass, uh, putting them on anybody else's personal property or tracking children or non-consenting adults. If you go through a divorce proceeding, for example, you can give notice to your spouse. You don't want to be tracked anymore. It also applies not only to the tracking devices, those little tags, but also to built-in devices in vehicles that can be used to track. So, um, you can give notice, for example, after a divorce that you don't want your spouse to use that on your car. Um, and it makes, uh, doing these things intentionally, a class A misdemeanor and also gives a private right of action. You could see that could be private, or sorry, that could be highly offensive behavior to track someone else's child. Uh, but that doesn't necessarily cause financial damage. And so it's hard for people to file a claim and, and recover. And so this gives a statutory penalty of $50 a day. Um, and this bill was supported by the statewide Association of Prosecutors. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker with a sponsor yield to a potentially series of questions. Representative Owens, will you yield to a series of questions?

Yes, yes. Representative MacPherson.

Uh, thank you Mr. Speaker. Just looking through the language of this, um, my, I guess my question, since we have this, um, this section down below with the compensatory and statutory damages, uh, section, obviously I wanna ensure that the, the language is clear. And so, uh, if I could just ask, so in these circumstances, if you have, for example, if you have a family iPhone plan and you use frequently they find my iPhone app, which includes some historical tracking data, and you've gone through a divorce or your children become adults. Are there circumstances under the language of this that may, um, potentially put whether in a, uh, a divorce or, or a, a estranged child situation where you could find yourself, uh, potentially in a violation that could lead to these statutory and compensatory damages as well as criminal violations?

Uh, I don't think so. The, uh, the provision is in there for, in a divorce proceeding for the adult to give notice to the other adult. They don't want to be tracked anymore. I don't see that potential. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, I guess my question comes down to when it says here that, um, uh, online, uh, 72, the actor did not receive permission from the individual to place the tracking device. Um, or the actor knowingly uses a tracking application installed or otherwise used, and then it has, um, uh, down on lines 82 did not receive permission. And then, uh, if you go down to the, the carve outs, um, starting at line 100, it carves out peace officers, a parent or legal guardian of a minor or a caregiver who is a vulnerable adult. And it, it, I I just, I'm, I guess I'm wondering, it doesn't sound like that potentially that in those circumstances that they would be, uh, that if your, if your minor child becomes an adult, or if a, if a relationship becomes estranged and there's some sort of notice made and the tracking applications have historical data, I'm just wondering in a circumstance, especially in a potentially messy divorce, for example, that this could be used as a, a, uh, a club when it's not intended to be. So, so I'm just curious if that has been, um, identified. 'cause I don't see in the language where it would specifically identify that. Uh, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Uh, the, uh, if I look on line 84, you're just not supposed to intentionally continue to use a tracking application after the individual revokes the permission to use it. So that would cover the divorce situation. I'm not, I guess I'm not sure where the statute would be effective, where it would be inappropriate. I don't see that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

And if I could clarify again, on the minor child becoming an adult, is that also in that section? Is that covered there under line 84? No. Okay. Uh, again, Mr. Speaker, I'm just, I'm just concerned if there's going to be some, uh, strict penalties right. Of action. Some damages listed in the statute that we make sure that the, the language is precise. Um, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a series of questions? Representative Owens will yield to a series of questions.

Yes, Mr. Yes. Representative Cutler.

Thank you. Uh, there may or may not be a high school in my area where students, including the same age as my son, that may not have their frontal lobes completely, uh, mature, have a common practice of tossing air tags into another student's car. And you, they use that to, to track their friends for fun, uh, in, in this and not with malicious intent, uh, in that scenario. Uh, are, are they technic if they, are they technically guilty of a, of a class A misdemeanor?

If they, yes, Mr. Thank you for the question, Mr. Speaker. Yes. If they, uh, are knowingly, uh, tracking someone else, um, yeah, they're not supposed to do that. Uh, and, uh, I have advised, uh, anyone who asked me that, that this is not a acceptable practice.

But, uh, are there any safeguards that would help distinguish between, uh, youth who are, who are doing this as a, um, knowingly and, uh, but not as in a malicious intent versus, uh, the, the malicious in intent that you have here? Uh, the, the prosecutor could, uh, show some judgment and not, not, I, I would think that most law enforcement officers would not, should I press charges in this type of a scenario, but I'm concerned that this, this case is happen, allegedly has happened, and that we don't want to, uh, uh, over, over, uh, ruin someone's record for an activity like this that they didn't know was, was such a crime. But I appreciate bringing this forward.

If I could respond to that. Please. Question. Uh, that is already a crime. This bill does not make that a crime. In fact, it, it narrows it. If you look at line 57, the actor knowing it's already a crime to install, uh, a, uh, tracking device on a motor vehicle belonging to someone else, I'm not changing that. We're actually knowing adding, uh, an in an intention, a state of mind, the actor knowingly installs. So the, the circumstance that the, uh, the, uh, representative is asking about is already covered under existing statute.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to series of Questions? Representative Bowes will yield to a series of Questions, certainly.

Okay. In the bill it says, um,

did not receive permission, but I'm not seeing where permission is really defined, and I'm wondering what that means. 'cause there's a situation in my family where my children track me because they wanna know when it's a good time to call mom. Like they know if I'm here, they can call me if I'm, or they, I, they can't call me if I'm somewhere else. They could, if I'm in my car, they're gonna call, you know, that kind of stuff. And, and I've never given 'em like a written thing or whatever. And how do we prove position, um, permission? How do you see that playing out with the permission?

Thank you for the question, Mr. Speaker. I, I think that commonly understood term of, of granting permission would be subject to proof. I mean, I think you would just say they gave me permission and I You don't need it from your children. Well, They're adults under the statute. You don't need permission. You're allowed to track the children under, under the statute your own children.

Okay. These are my children that are adults tracking me. That's what I'm saying. So, and I, and I'm fine with it, but I haven't given them a, a permission. And if they were to suddenly, you know, go over some line, I suppose I could declare, I've never really given them permission 'cause I didn't write anything down. And then, anyway, I just feel like that might be a little bit vague to try to prove, although I love this. Um, this bill. And then another question just as a follow up to, um, the previous question that you had, and that is, um, do you think that there are maybe better games that young people can play rather than tracking each other in their cars?

I, I'm not sure the answer to that question. I, I do think the permission question is not difficult to solve. I think when, when people ask each other, whether they give permission to track their phone, there's a record of that being accepted or not. Uh, but I'm not sure about the latter circumstance you're asking about.

Okay. Thank you. I was trying to give you help out there because I do think that if that's the game our young people are playing, they probably need a new game to play.

It, it sounds like we have a little work to do. Maybe to just clarify the intent and circling will give us the sponsor the opportunity to work with, um, the concerned parties that have expressed their thoughts.

I think so. I think it sounds like a good idea. Mr. Speaker.

Representative Owens Thank you Ms. Speaker. Motion to uncer HB 1 58. The motion is to encircle first substitute house bill 1 58 Unlawful tracking amendments.

Uncircled Representative Owens Mr. Speaker, this is a bill we considered a few days ago that, uh, concerned placement of tracking devices on vehicles or other personal property. There were some concerns raised. I'm anticipating a friendly amendment here momentarily concerning how to handle children who are, uh, being tracked by their parents and become adults. I think that's been fully addressed. There was also a concern about whether we were impinging on police uses of tracking devices. We are not, we've, the friendly amendment, uh, makes clear that there's no touching of police powers. And this bill has been supported by, uh, the, uh, legislative law enforcement committee, CCJJ, statewide Association of Prosecutors. So far as I know, we've vetted this widely and there's been no voice in opposition from law enforcement. With that, I'll conclude my presentation.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to adopt amendment one.

Just briefly. It really, uh, covers all the issues that, uh, the good representative brought up as well as, uh, a slight adjustment on the men's rea going from knowingly to intentionally. Um, and I think that covered all the concerns that we had, uh, discussed.

Representative Owens to the motion to amend. I, it's a friendly amendment and I appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Speaker ProAm. I, I rise in support of this bill because the sponsor worked with, uh, law enforcement. A lot of folks go down in rural Utah and they get lost and, and this, uh, tracking devices on your phones and so forth helps to find, uh, these people. And he worked with law enforcement to correct that. So appreciate the sponsor. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. President back so soon. So I will need to move amendment two to this one. Uh, that I don't know if that's what we seeing the other one, but, um, there are situations where non-consenting adults and children are being tracked. In, in Texas, a woman discovered a tracking device in her purse. After going to dinner with friends in Connecticut, a person was arrested for placing a GPS tracker on a teddy bear and a vehicle of a former romantic partner and a parent in Florida began receiving notifications that there was a tracking device in her child's shoe. Um, so this bill clarifies that a person does not have the right to track any other individual other than a consenting adult or his or her own children. Utah's existing statute already criminalizes the placement of a tracking device in a vehicle without consent, but this bill expands the prohibition to outlaw the placement of tracking devices in any kind of personal property such as a coat pocket, a child's toy, an airplane, um, et cetera. The bill also bans the use of built-in tracking devices such as in vehicles by non-consenting adults. Um, and with that, I'll, I'll yield to any questions. Again, thank you for the presentation.

Yes. Uh, will the sponsor yield test? Senator Weiler, will you yield?

Yes, go ahead, Senator Winterton. Okay.

As you read off those, my mind goes to tracking devices. Does this include a cell phone?

It could, yes. Go ahead. Yeah. Thank you.

Motion. Yeah, thank you. I I can tell you I, I just, uh, as a close, uh, quick summation. Oh, I can tell you that I, I know people going through divorces personally who have like stuck a cell phone in their spouse's car. I think it's a little bit different when you're still married, but, and just use the cell phone to track, uh, somebody without their knowledge or consent. Um, the amendment that I'd like to, to move it, um, it clarifies, uh, that rental car companies, um, rental cars are also covered by this. And then it says that subsections two A and two C do not apply to a rental company if the company is tracking their own vehicles. So with that, I'd like to move amendment number two in my name.

Thank you. And then, um, did you want me to suspend the rules again or No?

then I would move that first substitute house bill. 1 58 pass.

Representative Owens. Thank you Mr. Mr. Speaker motion to concur and sent with the Senate amendments.

Briefly. The this amendment, uh, clarifies that a business that owns a vehicle can still track that vehicle even though it's being driven by an employee. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.