H.B. 261 Electronic Information Privacy Act Amendments: transcript

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,

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.

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

Thank you. I appreciate it. Okay.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Uh, uh, a waive

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.