H.B. 261 Electronic Information Privacy Act Amendments

What this bill does

This bill amends Utah's Electronic Information Privacy Act to set when state and local police may obtain electronic evidence from another jurisdiction and when that evidence may be thrown out in court. It adds clearer rules on how law enforcement can get such information, such as through a warrant, subpoena, or from another agency.

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

• 11 yes, 0 noHouse Judiciary Committee: vote to change the bill · Feb 11, 2026Who voted how
• 11 yes, 0 noHouse Judiciary Committee: vote to approve it · Feb 11, 2026Who voted how
• 71 yes, 0 no, 4 absentFinal House vote · Feb 19, 2026Who voted how
• 4 yes, 0 no, 3 absentSenate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee: vote to approve it · Feb 25, 2026Who voted how
• 22 yes, 5 no, 2 absentFinal Senate vote · Mar 6, 2026Who voted how

Hearings and debates

• Feb 11, 2026 House Judiciary Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (17 turns)

  1. Committee chair55:18

     Alright, we'll go to item number two in our agenda. Uh, HB 2 61, electronic Information Privacy Act amendments from Representative Kyle and Representative Kyle. Looks like, uh, are you, will you be speaking to a second substitute? Yes. Perfect. All right. The time is yours.

  2. Rep. Jason B. Kyle55:37

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. I haven't been in front of this committee, I think in a, a really long time. Uh, I tend to try and avoid this stuff, but I thought, I thought it would, uh, I, I got my hands around something that I thought was, was pretty important. Um, one, one of the, back in 2014, a young, uh, legislator from Weaver County Senator Wilcox ran a, ran a bill that, or for about, uh, and established the electronic pri uh, information Privacy Act. Um, and, uh, and we were kind of, I think we let out on the country, um, with, with that, um, with that, uh, those fourth Amendment protections. Um, the, the world's changing quite a bit lately, right? Everything we're constantly monitored. Uh, you know, on everything you go out, you're under, you're on a camera, your, your phone's, your phone's, uh, pinging some database. There's a lot of, a lot of information out there about us. And so I, I I, I figured that. Um, and then in, in August there was a, a, a case that came before our Supreme Court. It was, uh, Utah v Andrus. And, uh, and in in that case, it, it rose some, some questions arose about how the, um, how the, our Electronic Data Privacy Act applies. Um, and, and when it doesn't. And, um, and, and, and the dissent, it, it talked about a lot how the, it was a four to one, one decision, but the dissent talked a lot about how the plain language of the statute, uh, said that, you know, you, that any, that they need to follow the law, right? When, when gathering, gathering, uh, evidence. But, um, but, uh, the, in the, in the dissent and in the majority opinion, it, it really laid out what it thought that the legislature could do to make things more clear. Uh, and so I, I, I took, I took their advice and, and try and trying to make this, this clear, uh, uh, and it's really here to protect our Fourth Amendment rights and also make it workable for, for this bill makes it workable for law enforcement to do their job as well. So I, I think we've come to a very good good balance, a very good, um, um, way forward for, for them to, so I've worked with, uh, the defense attorneys that they like it, the, um, uh, Libertas Institute. I've worked with Comcast and I've worked with, uh, the attorney gen, uh, general's office, and we, we've come to a good compromise on, on, on what the language is. So, I, I, I think, uh, yeah, pretty much this, this helps us uphold our Fourth Amendment and, uh, uh, and in, in the, in the day and age that we live in now where everything's electronic and we're using third party, uh, third parties to, to store or transmit our information. That concludes my presentation. Alright,

  3. Committee chair58:38

     Thank you, Representative Kyle. We'll go back to the committee for, uh, clarifying questions and discussion on HP 2 61. Okay. I'm not seeing any right now. Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak to this bill in the room? We have one. Okay. Anyone else? All right. We have one. And then do we have anyone online? Okay. No one online. All right, Mr. Chipman, the time is yours.

  4. Jason Chipman, Policy Director, Libertas Institute59:03

     Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Jason Chipman, I'm the policy director with the Libertas Institute. Uh, as Representative Kyle said, this all stems from a court case, uh, recently that kind of, uh, looked at the, what the statute was, and instead of, um, like you said, following exactly what it said, determined that it was unclear. And so what this bill does is, is tells exactly what law enforcement the steps they have to take in order to get information from a third party. So what it really does is it closes the loophole that says they can't circumvent the statutory requirements and the evidence obtained in violation of this chapter. And at the same time, uh, the sub preserves legitimate interagency cooperation, if another jurisdiction lawfully be lawfully obtains data as part of its own investigation, Utah can receive it. And if Utah requests assistance, the level of legal process must match what Utah law requires, which essentially says, if Utah asked the feds to get the information for them, the feds have to follow Utah law. Otherwise, that information can't be used in court. But if the feds are already doing the investigation or it's part of an interagency cooperation, then Utah can use that information and then that's just fine. And, you know, of course we have to compromise on a lot of this stuff, and we, we're not, we're not gonna get everything we want, but we think this provides a way forward to provide clarity to law enforcement and to the courts on how to adjudicate these cases. Thank you.

  5. Unknown speaker1:00:34speaker not certain

     Um, Mr. Chairman, I just have a quick question for, for you or Representative Kyle. So when you're talking about the other jurisdictions, would that, would the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children fall, fall under that, um, title? I believe there's a carve out for, for that. I don't, I think, Uh, is it in sub two? Let me here. The, I forget all the acronyms. Let's, Okay. I think I'm seeing it, uh, uh, line starting on line 3 24. So that, that was my, uh, thing. And I think that both of you have worked hard on this. And, um, so if, uh, for example, if Facebook is doing an investigation because they've got a tip from Facebook that says the someone's distributing child sexual abuse material on Facebook, and they get three photos of that, and they send that to ncmec and then they send that to a Utah law enforcement agency, that would be appropriate. But yeah, that's reasonable. Yeah. Ncmec, that was the other, A lot of acronyms. Yes. That was the one I was trying to think of. Thank you. But yeah, that's, we've, we've tried to think through things and the attorney general's office was very good in helping us, uh, find, find language and in that, so. Got It. Thank you so much. Yeah.

  6. Committee chair1:01:53

     Alright. Uh, so that was, that was our only public comment for in person, and then there was no one online. So we'll come back to the Committee for Action on, and there is a second sub substitute that we'd need to adopt for HP 2 61. Representative Loubet.

  7. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet1:02:13

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that we adopt the second sub for HB 2 61.

  8. Committee chair1:02:19

     That motion's in order? Would you like to speak to it? Uh, no. Alright. Discussion on the motion. Seeing none back to the sponsor for, to adopt sub two. Yeah.

  9. Rep. Jason B. Kyle1:02:29

     Thank you. I appreciate it. Okay.

  10. Committee chair1:02:31

      All in favor of adopting substitute two for HB 2 61. Say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Uh, we're now, uh, in front of us is the second substitute to this bill. Representative Loubet. Thank

  11. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet1:02:44

      You, Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a, uh, motion for a favorable recommendation of HB 2 61 to the house floor.

  12. Committee chair1:02:52

      Thank you. Representative. Would you like to speak to that?

  13. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet1:02:54

      Uh, just briefly, I, in reviewing the, uh, the policy, um, it's, it's a good policy. It's a good bill. I think, uh, he's been really good at working with the different stakeholders to on the policy, so I hope that, um, yeah, it'll get a favorable recommendation.

  14. Committee chair1:03:09

      Alright. Thank you Representative Loubet discussion to the motion to favorably recommend second substitute 2 61. Seeing none, we'll go back to the sponsor for summation.

  15. Rep. Jason B. Kyle1:03:19

      Yeah, thank you. I, I, I'd appreciate a, a favorable vote.

  16. Committee chair1:03:24

      All right. So the motion in front of us is to favorably recommend second substitute HB 2 61 onto the house floor. We'll do a voice vote. All in favor, uh, say please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. I rule that, uh, passes unanimously. Okay, thank you. Okay. Okay. Um, is representative Oh, representative touch?

  17. Unknown speaker1:03:47speaker not certain

      No, no, I'm good. Um, all right.

• Feb 19, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (10 turns)

  1. House clerk1:28:50

     Second substitute House Bill 2 61, electronic Information Privacy Act amendments by Representative Kyle. This bill was heard in judiciary with a vote of 11 0 0.

  2. Speaker (presiding)1:29:01

     Representative Kyle.

  3. Rep. Jason B. Kyle1:29:03

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker ProAm. May I move that the house adopt house amendment one

  4. Speaker (presiding)1:29:12

     That's in order. Would you like to speak to it?

  5. Rep. Jason B. Kyle1:29:14

     Yes. Uh, this bill's, uh, an electronic Information Privacy Act, uh, bill, and we're trying to reign in some things. And, uh, the, uh, DPS reached out and had had some concerns, and, uh, this amendment addresses their concerns on, on how they, uh, uh, can access certain information.

  6. Speaker (presiding)1:29:35

     Thank you. The motion is to adopt amendment number one. Discussion to the motion. See none represent Kyle for summation.

  7. Rep. Jason B. Kyle1:29:44speaker not certain

     Uh, uh, a waive

  8. Speaker (presiding)1:29:45

     The motion is waived that the motion is to adopt amendment number one. Second substitute house Bill 2 61. All in favor say aye. Aye. The opposed say no. Motion carries the bill as amended Representative Kyle.

  9. Rep. Jason B. Kyle1:29:58

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yeah. So we live in a, a very different world than we did, than the one we probably grew up in. Um, but we, uh, we, we still believe in the Fourth Amendment that it's very important and, uh, we were one of the first states to start, uh, tackling the electronic Information Privacy Act as it, as it re or electronic information as it relates to, uh, um, the Fourth Amendment. Uh, a bright-eyed, uh, legislator from Weaver County got us going on that in in 2014. So, but in, uh, um, recent years, the, there's been there, there's been some, uh, uh, some court cases that have, have put what our current law is into, uh, made it so it's, it's not so clear. So what, what this, what this does is it, um, uh, this bill addresses how our local law enforcement can comply with our electronic Information Privacy Act and, and still work with a federal law enforcement and law enforcement, uh, for, from, from other states. So, and this, this just, uh, is really to bolster and protect our fourth Amendment. I've worked with the, uh, uh, the ags office, DPS, the Defense attorneys, uh, Comcast, and the Libertas Institute, and we, we've come to a, uh, come to a, a good, uh, a good bill here. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

  10. Speaker (presiding)1:31:29

      Thank you. Representative Kyle Voting is open on second substitute house Bill 2 61 Electronic Privacy Act. Representative Thompson seeing all present, having voted Representative Voting will be closed. Second substitute house bill 2 81, 2 61, having received 71 yay votes. In zero nay votes passes the house will be transmitted to the Senate for the signature of the President Matter meeting clerk. This will be transmitted to the Senate for further consideration matter. Meeting clerk

• Feb 25, 2026 Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (15 turns)

  1. Committee chair33:29

     second substitute House Bill 2 61, electronic Information Privacy Act amendments. Representative Kyle Time's yours.

  2. Rep. Jason B. Kyle33:38

     Thank. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's a pleasure to be in your, your committee. I, um, HB 2 61, uh, is, is a bill that, that protects Utah's fourth Amendment rights. It's, uh, it's, uh, amendments to our electronic information, data privacy or the, the electronic information, uh, data Privacy Act. Um, there, there was a Supreme Court, a case that went up to our Supreme Court last August. And, and, and they, and, and that decision, um, they, they found some, uh, some vagueness or what, what they described as vagueness in the, in the majority opinion, but in the dissenting opinion, um, it all, it, it, um, the, the justice that wrote the, the dissenting opinion said that it was actually very clear in that, uh, the, um, the plain wording of, of the, of the statute, um, uh, was plain enough to, to make certain decisions. Uh, but, um, that being said, that that caused some confusion in, in the, in this act that we have so on on. And it, it deals with how, um, our law enforcement can work with federal law enforcement and still be, and still comply with the law. So the, what this, what this does is it, it, uh, resolves this issues ra raised in that, in that decision, it says, when and under what circumstances, a state or local law enforcement agency may obtain evidence covered by the, uh, electronic Information Privacy Act, uh, from another jurisdiction. And to the extent to which the evidence obtained in, in violation of, of that act, uh, can, will, will be suppressed. Um, and so it's, um, I I've worked on this with, with all, all stakeholders that, that have come to the table. Uh, I've worked with, uh, DPS, the, the Attorney General's office, the, uh, the, uh, Comcast, the, the defense attorneys, and, um, uh, let's see, the Veritas Institute. So I, I, we've all come to kind of something that, that, that, uh, we feel comfortable with. And this puts a lot of clarity in the law. And, um, and it's something that we can do to help support our, our Utahans, uh, um, to protect their Fourth Amendment rights. So, um, and it's, uh, and to actually going down this rabbit hole, it, it's shown me how little privacy we actually have, uh, today in 2026. There's very little, you can buy almost everybody's information on almost anything now that it is. So I think it's actually very important that, that this is clear in statute and with, with where we're heading. So, uh, that, that concludes my presentation. Okay.

  3. Sen. Evan J. Vickers36:21

     Senator Vickers? Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, you know, whenever we do these kind of things, I kind of always wonder, okay, so how does this help, you know, can you give me like a scenario where this would play out?

  4. Rep. Jason B. Kyle36:34

     Sure. So I, I mean our, our Electronic Information Privacy Act, that that's, it's not, it's not a new, um, thing, right? It, it's, it's actually, uh, we, I think it was started back in 2014, um, and then it was, I think Representative Wilcox, uh, ran that original bill. And then, uh, representative Craig Hall did a little bit more in 2019, who's now, ironically a judge, I actually wanted to call him, but I don't know if you would've talked to me being, being in the physician. He is now. Right. But, uh, it's, um, right now there it is, it is due to that decision. It's not actually not very clear on what law enforcement can and can't do when, when they're working with, with, uh, on how they can obtain evidence. Right? So, um, so we have this act and, and, and they're saying, okay, I want to actually, it's nice having some law enforcement in our body as well. So I talked to some of them and they say, they're saying, okay, when I need evidence, I can get a warrant, or I can get a subpoena, uh, through to, you know, to Comcast and, and they'll give it to me, or I can go around and I can go ask my law enforcement buddy. And they have, have a different process. So what this is, is it's, it's, uh, it, it's just sets a little bit clarity up for the law that that's already there, uh, on, on what we can, what law enforcement can and can't do. So it's, um, it's really bolstering the, the Fourth Amendment, but also updating it for the reality and for in which we live right now in 2026.

  5. Sen. Evan J. Vickers38:11

     Okay. So you, you feel comfortable that it's gonna meet, meet a balance of protecting individuals, but still giving law enforcement the ability to

  6. Rep. Jason B. Kyle38:19

     Yes. Yeah. And, you know, Yeah, I, I was, I was, I was very, uh, one of my goals was not to make this hard for law enforcement, that we appreciate what they do and we want them to, to be continue doing their job, but we also wanted them to, to be clear about what, how they can do it. Because we don't want them to go do the work and then have their evidence suppressed. Right. Or, or, um, uh, later down the line. So, uh, yeah, I, that's why I brought everybody to the table. The Attorney general's office was very good to work with, um, and, uh, DPS, that they, they laid out their concerns on how they do things, and I learned quite a bit going through this, this process. So.

  7. Committee chair38:58

     Okay. Thanks. Alright. Questions. Alright, let's, uh, open this one up to public comment. Is there individuals who would like to speak to this bill? We got one. You know the drill there.

  8. Jason Chipman, Director of Public Policy, Libertas Institute39:15

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Uh, my name is Jason Shipman. I'm the policy director for Le Barons Institute. Uh, this, uh, lawsuit was something we were very interested in. We were kind of surprised when it actually came about, and the decision was handed down because we thought the statute was pretty clear that said that law enforcement had to get a warrant whenever they wanted to access this information. And so what I think, uh, Representative Kyle has come up with is a very good compromise to where it still allows law enforcement to do all of those inter-agency, uh, uh, investigations and trade information back and forth when they're doing that. But it also Vernal, uh, preserves our Fourth Amendment rights, uh, whenever that information is being obtained to make sure that our privacy is, is secure. And so, while of course, we would want it to go a lot further in, in one direction, we realize that's not gonna, you know, it's not gonna be feasible all the time. So we're still appreciative of, of the work that he has done, and we're appreciative of how this bill has turned out. And so I, I'm very happy with it. Thank you.

  9. Committee chair40:17

     Thank you. I see no others, uh, unless close public comment, come back for further consideration or action from the committee. I'll make a motion. Alright. Senator Vickers. Thank

  10. Sen. Evan J. Vickers40:30

      You, Mr. Chair. I would make a motion that we favor, we recommend second substitute Hospital 2 61

  11. Committee chair40:36

      Discussion to that motion back to the sponsor.

  12. Rep. Jason B. Kyle40:40

      Yes. Thank, that's, uh, I, I would appreciate that this is, uh, something that I think, uh, the state needs and, and law enforcement needs. So it, I think it's, uh, and Utahans need to help protect their Fourth Amendment rights.

  13. Committee chair40:53

      Okay. Back to you, Senator Vickers.

  14. Sen. Evan J. Vickers40:56

      No, I appreciate the sponsor, you know, creating a balance and, and addressing the issue. So, thank you.

  15. Committee chair41:01

      Alright. Uh, the question is, is, uh, second substitute house bill 2 61 out favorably. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any aye. Okay. That is four zero then. Thank you. Thank you. All right.