S.B. 262 Law Enforcement Usage of Unmarked Vehicles

What this bill does

The bill would stop law enforcement from using unmarked vehicles to make traffic stops for infractions, so those stops would need to be made in marked vehicles or by other officers. The latest version, a third substitute, includes listed exceptions, but the material does not spell out what they are.

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

• 6 yes, 1 no, 2 absentSenate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee: vote to approve it · Feb 20, 2026Who voted how
• 8 yes, 18 no, 3 absentSenate vote, which failed · Mar 3, 2026Who voted how

Hearings and debates

• Feb 12, 2026 Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee
• Feb 18, 2026 Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee
• Feb 20, 2026 Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (49 turns)

  1. Committee chair1:42:30

     All right, thank you. We're gonna go to Senator McKay. He's also, this is his third time I think, on our, one of our agendas. So Senate Bill 2 62, law enforcement Usage of unmarked vehicles. Uh, Senator McKay, you had the floor, you also have a sub, so let us know if you're gonna present that one. Okay,

  2. Sen. Daniel McCay1:42:47

     Will do. Thank you. I didn't realize that, uh, judiciary and the entitlement we would follow the court's, uh, you know, speed and process as well. I did present Two. I'm gonna take that as a compliment. Thank You. I did present two other bills in the other committees in the last 10 minutes, so it did work out great. Well, that's re's fault. Yes. Well, I'm not blaming anyone. I just love it all. Uh, this is a constituent driven bill, Senate Bill 2 62. I got a call, uh, over the interim this last year, uh, that, uh, a young lady was pulled over in a, uh, not in a well-lit, um, area, and, uh, she was, well, she was driving along, apparently committed some type of, uh, traffic infraction, and she got pulled over when the person, uh, was, uh, walking up to the car. She noticed that it wasn't a marked vehicle. Uh, so she all of a sudden got a little bit concerned when the person got out of the car. Uh, the, the individual was wearing a pair of jeans and a polo shirt with no markings that it was law enforcement. Uh, and, uh, she be began to get very nervous, uh, and explained, you know, uh, her frustration. Um, when, uh, confronted by the officer, she was told that, uh, she was being pulled over for failing to signal, uh, and, um, you know, wanted a bunch of information. She grew in deeper concern, uh, felt like she was unsafe in the situation she was in. Um, I, I don't know what that feels like. I have to be honest. I had, uh, I, it turned out it was a legitimate stop as a law enforcement officer, all these things. Um, but when the constituent called me, that was the next morning, and she was still, uh, felt traumatized, I guess, about, uh, is the best word for it. Um, I asked her if she wanted to be here today. She did not. Uh, but that, that being said, um, I asked my daughters how they felt about the situation, and they felt, uh, extremely uneasy in the same situation. Uh, and, and I guess the purpose of the bill, um, I'm not sure what to do about the substitute yet. It, it creates, uh, you know, it has a carve out for, you know, different types. And we can debate that a little bit more if we want. But the purpose of the bill is to remove the use of unmarked vehicles for the purpose of traffic enforcement for infractions. Uh, these are the types of, uh, things that you, you know, you get a ticket for. Uh, and, you know, generally, you know, deal with that, uh, goes on, your driving record is not a crime per se, as, uh, doesn't arise to the level of misdemeanor. Um, there are crimes that do elevate to a crime of misdemeanor, you know, for example, going over a hundred miles an hour, um, driving under the, into driving while intoxicated. All of those things happen. And so, uh, this was an effort to bring to the committee and to have for the public the purpose of, uh, debating, uh, the policy of unmarked vehicles for traffic infraction as, or for traffic enforcement. Uh, as, as we weigh it against individuals, uh, you know, feeling, uh, ability to feel safe. One, the other part of it, uh, that's, that is true, and I'm, I'm not gonna quote a percentage here, but it is well known that marked vehicles actually are greater crime prevention and greater traffic enforcement tools because they actually prevent behavior as opposed to one vehicle pulling over one vehicle that is about enforcement and ticket slash revenue collection. Right? Different aspects. If we really are into public safety and want to increase, increase the safety of our roads, the ability to have a marked vehicle on the road to provide open, notorious, you know, that actually does better, unfortunately, 'cause it happened to me this morning. Someone was driving much slower because highway patrol was nearby Uhhuh. I was grateful at the same time, running a little bit late, but that those marked vehicles have the ability to, uh, make our roads safer. So with that, I'll conclude my presentation. Happy to discuss any of the issues in the bill and discuss the sub if people want to as well.

  3. Committee chair1:46:53

     Thank you for your presentation.

  4. Unknown speaker1:46:55speaker not certain

     I will say I love my Woods Cross police department, but they have these, they're pretty cool looking, but they have these dark black vehicles, and then they use like, the darkest gray, like painting on the side, like to say, Woods Cross Police Department. And so I wouldn't say it's an unmarked vehicle, but if it's dark, there's no way you're going to know that that's an, that's a vehicle unless you have a very trained eye. So, um, anyway, so I, uh, I, I can relate a little bit to the issues that, uh, you've touched upon, uh, Senator Brammer.

  5. Sen. Brady Brammer1:47:25

     Yeah. Um, in your mind, is there any difference between an unmarked vehicle and a vehicle you can't see because it's nighttime?

  6. Sen. Daniel McCay1:47:35

     Yes, there is. And the distinction is clear that where the light bar is located is a very clear indication of whether or not I've got a, a marked police car or an unmarked police car. A light bar on top is open and notorious, even though it is small, it is open, notorious, it is known, right. Other vehicles driving by see that light bar on top, it knows that is a, uh, a marked vehicle. So I compare that to a light bar that is hidden behind the grill, okay. Which was the case in the constituent matter hidden behind the grill. And you would never see those lights. You could, I, I went, you know, and looked on temu. I, I could buy the same lights, uh, for a very low price. So, But not all I'm giving anyone ideas. Even Marked vehicles don't all have the light bar on top. Like, there's quite a few that don't have the light bar on top. Yeah. So, like, that's true. I, I mean, I, I guess I'm trying to, like, if it's just dark and you can't see it, 'cause there's not a street light, even if it has a light bar, what's the difference? That's a great question, Senator. And, uh, I wish my daughters were here to give you an interpretation of how they would feel if they were pulled over by a car. They couldn't tell as a police officer and had someone in a pair of jeans and a polo shirt walk up with no badge. I wish I could ask them that, and they could testify on that per, per perspective. But what I can tell you is an open, more notorious, I mean, let's make 'em neon green and put lights on 'em and have 'em run around, you know, let's make 'em extremely visible. That's all I'm saying. At the end of the day, I can't do that. You know, I'd probably get more pushback from, you know, that type of deal. But if our efforts are to make it, make it safe, I can't tell you, you know, as technology gets better, you know, the car should be perfect. I don't know. And I can't look into the mind of a reasonable person and tell them what the light should be and how open and notorious or marked it should be if it's dark, all those things. I'll tell you what, I can see the headlights of those dodges anywhere from Highway Patrol, and I can see the headlights from just about any of the others. I, I, I know when they're coming. I can feel it most of the time. Mm-hmm. Usually there's red and blue lights following me also, so they go.

  7. Sen. Luz Escamilla1:49:44

     All right. Uh, Senator Escamilla, uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, and thank you Senator for, uh, being responsive to, um, an actual fear I think of, of especially women and I the account makes sense. There's also been an, an increase on impersonating law enforcement. Mm-hmm. Uh, unfortunately. And the, um, women tend to be disproportionately impacting. And, um, you know, and, and this, um, bad apples are, you know, individuals that are using vehicles that are unmarked, but they put the demo lights or whatever they do, and unfortunately, it's some horrible things that happened to those victims. I think this is a way of protecting both law enforcement as well as individuals that may be interacting. And in all fairness, I think many of us have participated on ride-alongs and have, um, we've been educated by our good, especially the Utah Patrol and how they function that, um, in a traffic violation. I think there's always, you know, it could be an, um, an, a peace officer that feels it's important to take some action that they can communicate with one of their, um, colleagues that may be, um, on duty at that point, or, you know, with Mark vehicles for a traffic violation to interact. So they don't have to, to do this. I, I think this makes sense, and I, I appreciate it's pretty clean and concise and unmarked. You know, unmarked vehicles should not be, um, proceeding that way, especially for a traffic violation. So I, I'll be very supportive of the bill and hope to see less horrible humans, um, harassing and hurting, especially women by impersonating law enforcement. And this just closes, um, more of that gap. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

  8. Committee chair1:51:29

     Thank you. All right. Senator Musselman, Joanna, just a rubber meets a road practical, Joe, the plumber question.

  9. Sen. Calvin R. Musselman1:51:39

     Um, you've got, uh, uh, agencies that probably can afford marked vehicles and then have unmarked vehicles for purposes that are investigatory in nature. But then there's agencies, let's say in more removed rural places where let's say a sheriff's office has a couple of marked vehicles and one unmarked vehicle, um, for purposes of investigation, but still use that for traffic stops. Now we're in a circumstance where we're gonna have to make certain, either that, that sheriff, let's say, and I'm using a specific example, that sheriff would either, either have to no longer have the access to an unmarked vehicle, or just not pull anybody over if he happens to be out in his regular duties. That would be the circumstance if this bill were to pass, right? He would either have to not pull anybody over if he's using his vehicle that's issued to him, or make it marked so they no longer have an unmarked vehicle for other investigations. Uh, just practically speaking. Yeah. So, uh,

  10. Sen. Daniel McCay1:52:46

      Good question. Uh, I think the, uh, the question of cost versus safety is, is the debate I have, right? Or the perception or feeling of safety. Um, but I, I'd go one further and say, I don't know how they would handle it. I mean, I, I've never, now I'm terrible, right? And I, I, I just think about dollars and cents. I don't understand. Um, you know, and when I worked for, you know, uh, full confession, I worked for the San Diego County Sheriff's Department when I was younger. Uh, back then, uh, officers, you know, uh, deputies did not have assigned vehicles per se, that they took home. Uh, you know, the sheriff at the time, everybody had shared vehicles, and so you were riding, you know, the one vehicle was active on, you know, two if not three shifts. Um, so I, I don't know why we've created an environment where every officer has their own car and every car goes home with that officer and does all of those things. I, I don't know. Um, but there's nothing that says that that officer, uh, in a marked vehicle can't call another officer on duty to, you know, respond, uh, and, you know, deal with the traffic infraction. They've still witnessed a traffic infraction. They can still sign it a, a ticket. They can still do those things, but they just can't be the one to pull 'em over. That's all it is, and follow 'em home. I mean, there's a lot of things that can happen. It's a change of enforcement. But when we value safety, right? And the perception of safety over cost, I would just say, I don't know. I think the trade off's worth it. We don't necessarily need marked or unmarked vehicles for traffic, enfor, traffic enforcement. That being said, there are exigent circumstances, right? And we have that prepared for, and, and in the bill as well. So I, I feel like this is a good balance for people to try and act or tried to balance this policy, taking that into account, you know, I, I did look it up. There have been eight of these incidents that, uh, that, uh, Senator Escamilla mentioned in the last two months in the United States of police officers or people impersonating police officers with TMU lights and trying to pull people over. That's just the last two months since, you know, session started. So just keep that in mind. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

  11. Committee chair1:55:04

      Thank you. Alright, let's go to the public. Are the members of the public that would like to be heard on this bill? 1, 2, 3. Anybody online? Four. Okay. Listen, people, when I ask you, you don't wait 30 seconds to raise your hands. So raise your hands if you wanna speak on this bill right now. Anybody else? So now we just have one, two. Okay. Raise your hands, people, this is not that hard. Raise them really high so I can see them. So we have four in person and three online. Thank you.

  12. Jason Chipman, Policy Director, Libertas Institute1:55:36

      Please proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Jason Chipman. I'm the policy director for the Libertas Institute here to speak in favor of Senate Bill 2 62. Uh, we think this is a balanced approach to safety, uh, that, uh, Senator McKay has brought forward. Um, this still allows, um, unmarked police vehicles to make stops in emergency circumstances. So if they see somebody that they think is committing a DUI, if somebody is recklessly driving, they can pull those people over, and that's fine. And we think that the language in the original bill, and it's more, it's spelled out more succinctly in the substitute, allows law enforcement if they're doing an undercover investigation and they find it, uh, that they, it's more hazardous to go to somebody's house or to their place of work to arrest them, and they think it's gonna be easier and safer if they pull this person over and arrest them, then they can use a traffic stop. You know, they can use an, an infraction as a reason to pull them over. And that's not gonna get held against them. You know, that doesn't get thrown out just because of that. Um, this bill, uh, uh, is about, um, deterrence. You know, it's about getting people to comply with the law. On my way here, on Wednesday, I was on the freeway and a highway patrolman passed me on the left. He was going a little faster than I was. And on my right hand side, a car was coming by going faster than highway patrolman. And the patrolman was about three car lengths ahead of me. And as soon as that car saw the patrolman, which was clearly marked, they slowed down. It wasn't, they just keep going. They saw it and they slowed down. It's probably me. It could have been if you were coming from Utah County, maybe. But, uh, uh, this does not require additional, uh, purchasing and staffing. Um, we think that, that that's a policy choice by the local officials, and they can choose whether or not to, uh, get more cars or change the cars. Uh, if the purpose of traffic enforcement is safety, visibility helps. If the purpose is revenue, stealth helps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

  13. Committee chair1:57:36

      Thank you. I failed to mention, I'm gonna give each, uh, pre, uh, public comment a minute and 30 seconds, so please.

  14. Col. Greg Holley, Utah Highway Patrol1:57:44

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, committee, uh, Greg Hawley serves the Colonel High Patrol. Um, I agree with the, the senator. Uh, mark Patrol cars are by far the biggest deterrent. That's why the, the majority of our vehicles are fully marked. Um, that being said, we are in opposition to the bill. Uh, it limits, uh, a variety of ways that we can do some enforcement projects, distracted driving, being one of 'em. Uh, we typically bring a, a van out unmarked, uh, patrol the highways, identify, you know, distracted drivers, those texting, uh, that we, uh, initiate a traffic stop. Um, myself, I drive an unmarked car to and from the office, and I would like to think those blowing my doors off to and from, you know, 90 miles an hour, uh, that I'm still a trooper. And I would expect the public expects me to make a traffic stop on that person. Come and pat me at 90 miles an hour. And, uh, this limits that ability for my, myself and, uh, our other administrators. Um, we do appreciate the conversation we've had with Senator McCay, but as written, we would oppose the, uh, bill. Thank you very much.

  15. Sheriff Nathan Curtis, Sevier County Sheriff1:58:47

      Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair for, let me speak. Sheriff Nathan Curtis, severe county sheriff. Um, I'm gonna be one of those guys that's gonna go out and get in an unmarked car right here in a minute. Um, I will tell you that this is a bill that I oppose, mostly because one of the reasons for the unmarked cars is to mix it up, right? We all know where the troopers or the law enforcement officers are sitting along south of Nephi. Uh, I know there's always one parked behind a tree just north of Cedar City. So we know where those are. I, we try and mix it up. Having an unmarked car is one of those that helps people kind of wanna, we never know where the cops are gonna be. They may be there, and we're going to actually maybe slow down. So, the other side of it is, is that I do appreciate the conversations we've had. Uh, we want to continue to have those. I can tell you from many experiences that I've pulled people over in the middle of the night, and in this instance, uh, there is never a time when I haven't had somebody, when I've been pulled over. When those red and blues lights always made me nervous. It doesn't matter who it is. You can be the most experienced person, or the most unexperienced, the things that we teach people. If you're nervous, call 9 1 1 and keep on driving to the local police department or the Sheriff's office. We're happy to help. And it's for the safety for them. Thank you.

  16. Committee chair2:00:06

      Thank you. Uh, hold on, hold on, hold on. We got questions. We'll start with Senator Musselman.

  17. Sen. Calvin R. Musselman2:00:11

      Joel, the plumber. What was that? What was that Spot again? What, where was the tree? So, can you just send me a pin?

  18. Sheriff Nathan Curtis, Sevier County Sheriff2:00:17

      Just north of Voch, about two miles north of Enoch. There's a spot where the trooper sits.

  19. Committee chair2:00:22speaker not certain

      Anyway, is there a pen so I can sign in? There's Another question. Uh, there's a pen. Oh, sorry. No question. Uh, Senator Escamilla, I was looking for a pen for him. Yeah, sorry.

  20. Sen. Luz Escamilla2:00:33

      Um, thank you, Mr. Chair. And, uh, and, and the same goes to the highway patrol. No one is addressing the fear factor. So can, can you just, and, and look, I will love to hear from women, I mean, in your law enforcement agencies, because I have four daughters and I'm, I'm afraid when I cannot see who this person is, and I've been pulled over by, you know, I shouldn't say that, but I have been pulled over and I'm, I'm okay having an interaction with an, an officer that I can see what the car is and interacting. This is not a safe world. So, I mean, this idea that, oh, trust us. Like, I'm like, trust who, when I can see who you are, and so I'm, I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time listening to you guys for traffic violations that you cannot call one of your colleagues. 'cause you're not the only officer. I mean, I, and now in rural Utah can recognize the distance. So I'm, I'm all understanding that I'm thinking section four for the highway patrol. I'm like, mm, you guys are not alone out there. I mean, again, distances, minutes, or, you know, um, where is the, are you not hearing that people are afraid people, especially women, can, can we have a conversation about the fear factor, please,

  21. Sheriff Nathan Curtis, Sevier County Sheriff2:01:52

      Abs? Absolutely. You know, we just, we had an incident just two weeks ago where we had a lady that turned around in a driveway in a town in my county, and the homeowner chased her down the road. Oh, very scary incident. And it's the same thing we told her, drive directly to the sheriff's office, hit your emergency lights, don't break the law. Apparently she was driving 85 miles an hour and this guy was still following her. But that's the same issue. That's why we tell people, 'cause I get asked this all the time. When we go to young women's groups, to the schools, if you're nervous and you don't know who that is, dial 9 1 1 and drive directly to the law enforcement agency wherever is closest because, and we teach our officers that way. That's the same thing I teach my deputies. This person may not who know who you are, they may be nervous, they may just be nervous in general, whether you have a marked car or not. Allow them to go to the local police department. That way they can make sure that they're okay. I will say in this instance, it's hard to see the side of a vehicle in the middle of the night. So it wouldn't change that. But you're absolutely right. Sometimes I'm the only car for a hundred miles in my county and surroundings. So we do need to share with a public more that, Hey, if you're nervous, please just dial 9 1 1. And as law enforcement, we're okay with that. We actually teach that. If they're nervous, get somebody else there.

  22. Sen. Luz Escamilla2:03:18

      Just one last question, Mr. Chair, please. Yeah. I appreciate the time. So are, and, and maybe just now be practical in terms of the policy in the second sub, uh, sorry. First substitute. You don't feel you get that protection for the emergency pieces. 'cause I, I mean, I'm listening to you and I'm thinking, okay, if you think this person has, you know, is driving under the influence or there may be like a, a, a serious criminal activity happening, by all means, at that point, you know, we've had people save lives of humans by being off duty and, and being a, a peace officer and acting, and we applaud them and we want them to do that. You don't think the sub does that for you versus a traffic violation incident. So it, it can be very different.

  23. Sheriff Nathan Curtis, Sevier County Sheriff2:04:02

      So another example, a couple months ago I had a lady blow right through a red light right in front of me. I'm in my hometown. Everybody knows that I am an officer. They all know who I am. They know my vehicle. But this person ran a red light. In this instance, I would not be allowed to write her a citation. Now I could call and get somebody else to come and do that.

  24. Unknown speaker2:04:26speaker not certain

      Okay. So you're saying sub one does not give you that authority? It, It doesn't give me, me the authority to write the citation. Okay. If I'm the only one In the someone running a red light. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chair.

  25. Committee chair2:04:38

      Thank you, Senator Brammer.

  26. Sen. Brady Brammer2:04:40

      So, but under the sub, you could write it up as if you suspected them of drunk driving and then you could, right?

  27. Sheriff Nathan Curtis, Sevier County Sheriff2:04:46

      Yeah, but that wouldn't be appropriate. 'cause I wouldn't, I wouldn't have suspected 'em of drunk. But now deputies that are in unmarked vehicles that see crimes are now incentivized to claim that everyone who commits a crime in front of them that they try to enforce was drunk. Yeah. Or, you know, was committing a, a more serious violation. It it, I could go in and say, Hey, there's a vehicle that it had a tinted windows going down the freeway. And so I'm gonna suspect them automatically of maybe they're doing trafficking drugs or weapons or people.

  28. Unknown speaker2:05:15speaker not certain

      Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Alright.

  29. Stuart Young, Criminal Deputy Attorney General, Utah Attorney General's Office2:05:20

      Thank you. Stuart Young, criminal Deputy Attorney General at the office of, uh, the Utah Attorney General. Um, we appreciate, uh, this bill and what Senator McKay has, has been working on. And in fact, we appreciate the light that he's bringing to, uh, things such as, uh, Senator Escamilla talked about and so forth. I'm approaching it just from a slightly different perspective. I ran a federal gang unit, uh, at the US Attorney's Office for more than seven years. And all of my gang detectives, either from the Sheriff's Metro Gang unit, or uh, other law enforcement agencies were all in, uh, unmarked vehicles. And the investigatory stops that were used during investigations were incredibly useful. I appreciate that. The sub now has some exigency issues, exigency options and whatnot. We do still have some concerns about lines 49 through 51. We think that's just not an essentially robust enough for us to be able to use those investigatory tools, but we look forward to working with the senator to try to, to work on that further.

  30. Nate Hutchinson, Lieutenant, Director of Salt Lake Area Gang Project2:06:27

      Thank you. Uh, my name is Nate Hutchinson. I am the project director for the Salt Lake Area Gang Project, um, that encompasses the Metro Gang unit, um, choose gang free as well as the residents against graffiti. I've been in law enforcement for 26 years, and I'll be the first one to say I struggle writing tickets. I could never write tickets. I just was not a ticket person. But I am opposed to this bill, and I'll explain why. I don't think it, it makes Utah safer. Um, number one, the number one preventable cause of death in the state of Utah is traffic accidents. And the number one cause of traffic accidents is excessive speed. So anytime you're taking away a tool that we can use to slow people down or whatever, then you know, that's kind of the obvious, um, effect that you're having. But there's much more that I think are unintended consequences here, and that is the way it's going to affect my work. I deal with victims of violent crime. That's what I've done most of my career. I deal with people who live in neighborhoods who are fearful of retaliation. If they were to report gang crimes or, or things like that, through trust and through building relationships with them, I get them to come forward and provide us with tips. That is, because a lot of times I tell them, no matter what, I will figure out a way. I just need the information on who's who. Tell me who's who. And I will stop them. So we'll make traffic stops for a stop sign violation, develop our own probable cause, and then, and then end up taking a gang member off the street for a gun that was in the car. And we're able to protect our informants.

  31. Committee chair2:08:07

      Thank you. Alright, we're gonna go to Mr. Uh, mutter online just to see if he's still wearing his tie.

  32. Nate Mutter, Chair, Law Enforcement Legislative Committee2:08:17

      Thank you Chair committee. Yes, I am. Uh, not until I'm away from this committee, will I take it off? But, uh, I appreciate the opportunity to speak. Um, uh, the, the Law Enforcement Legislative Committee. Oh, the, yeah. Nate Mutter chair of the Law Enforcement Legislative Committee, chief Investigations for the Utah Attorney General's Office, uh, both of which, uh, opposed the bill. Um, and the LALC actually, um, took a, a position to priority oppose this one. Um, because of the implications that it has, uh, you've heard a lot of of comment, uh, from, from those in the, uh, in the committee room. Uh, I think what we're talking about here is deterrence and detection. Uh, Senator McKay is exactly right. Marked units, uh, do a really good job of deterring, but they don't do a really good job of detection because people that are driving on the roads, when they see a marked unit, they tend to not disobey traffic loss. Uh, but when we're talking about detection, unmarked units are very good at I identifying, uh, traffic violations, safety violations, uh, community safety issues, uh, because people will drive as they drive, uh, when they don't see a marked unit. Uh, so we're talking about crosswalks, uh, school crossing zones, uh, distracted driving. Uh, even, even DUI, um, uh, enforcement. We, we don't know if someone's driving drunk until we get to the, to the car after we identify a traffic infraction. Uh, so for, for, for this and many other reasons, uh, we would urge the committee to, to oppose, uh, bringing this bill forward. Thank you.

  33. Committee chair2:09:59

      Thank you. Uh, sheriff Glover. Oh, I'm sorry. We are running out of time, Senator, but please go ahead.

  34. Sen. Luz Escamilla2:10:08

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think this is a very important bill. I want it is a question to Nate. Um, because he, I know he represents, um, a lot of the law enforcement agencies and I, do you think there's a way of giving enough, um, place for the activities that you guys are discussing that I don't think anyone disagrees are important, that undercover work? I mean, I just wanna hear that there is a solution to a real problem. And if the public, I'm hearing from my constituents, I, I I'll say my constituents are, are I love representing my district. This is something that I've been hearing from them because they care 'cause they're afraid. So can we help here the community feel safe and get to a, a community policing where we all agree that there are rules and we all appreciate the service, but is, is there a way, Nate, that you guys can work some language that satisfies those, those pieces that you, I think are appropriate? Uh, I, I see them on sub two, but I mean, sub one. But if it's not enough, can you guys work on that?

  35. Nate Mutter, Chair, Law Enforcement Legislative Committee2:11:08

      Uh, yeah. Uh, Senator, thank you for the question. Uh, Mr. Chair, uh, I, I believe we could put our heads together and come up with something. Um, I, I know our big group meets Monday. We can have a really good discussion about this Monday morning, and hopefully, uh, Senator McKay would, uh, would take our group's feedback and, and, uh, as we work to, to address the issue. Alright.

  36. Committee chair2:11:29speaker not certain

      Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Alright. Sheriff Glover?

  37. Tracy Glover, Kane County Sheriff and President, Utah Sheriffs Association2:11:37

      Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name's Tracy Glover. I'm the Cain County Sheriff and the president of the Utah Sheriff's Association, also a member of the LALC. And, uh, we oppose this bill for a lot of the reasons that have been mentioned so far. I just wanted to kind of reiterate the, the question from Senator Escamilla about, uh, uh, sheriff Curtis's example of the person that ran the stoplight in this bill. Um, if I, uh, in my unmarked vehicle saw that happen on my way to work this morning, I would not be able to stop that vehicle, even to offer them a warning. And that's the, that's a problem. I don't think we've addressed the administrative, uh, enough where, uh, Colonel Hawley did mention that administratively he would like the ability to, to, uh, stop cars when you see something happening that ISN isn't infraction, but, but is dangerous. So I think we need to talk about that. The other thing to, to the points that have been made about the fear factor, we understand that can be an issue. And, and those examples get brought up on social media and people are afraid. In some cases, we do encourage them to call 9 1 1. We also, I just want to mention, uh, try to train our officers to identify themselves and be understanding that people might be afraid of the situation. I mean, everyone's nervous when they see red and blues, but, you know, some people might truly have some, some fear that that triggers them to be beyond nervous. And so we would encourage them to call 9 1 1. We would also train our officers to identify themselves, uh, early and often and provide any, uh, means necessary to make sure those people know that, that they are an officer and even encourage them to call 9 1 1 on the side of the road. But, uh, we would oppose this bill, we would ask the committee to oppose this bill, and we would be willing to work with Senator McKay to see if there's, uh, some language that could be improved. Thank you.

  38. Committee chair2:13:26

      Thank you. And we'll last go to Chief Brad Bishop, chief

  39. Brad Bishop, Payson Chief of Police and President, Utah Chiefs of Police Association2:13:31

      Thanks, chairman, and the members of the committee. My name's Brad Bishop. I'm the Chief of Payson City Police Department. I'm also the president of the Utah Chiefs Association, uh, speaking in an opposition to this bill. Um, and I don't wanna rehash everything that's been said. I just wanna give a couple examples of that happens in my community that in the use of unmarked vehicles, um, I have dozens of school bus stops as well as school crossings in my city. Often I have, uh, crossing guards and school bus drivers call me and say, chief, we have a problem. Can you send a an officer down to this area? We have cars running through our school zones, uh, running, you know, past our school bus stops. And I do. So, um, and then I get feedback from there, said, Hey, they don't do, these individuals aren't breaking the law. When you have a marked car there, can you do something to provide us a little more protection? And that's when I use these, some of these unmarked vehicles to go down to these stops. And not, not to hide, but to obviously catch some of these unsuspecting motorists that continually break the law and put our, our crossing guards in danger. Um, I had one last year that got hit by a car just for this exact reason. And, and a lot of them are very vocal. They, they, uh, I I often ask them, why don't you take a picture of the license plate? And they refer to me and say, uh, chief, I have a stop sign on one hand, and I'm holding my hand up for the, the kids to come across. I don't have the ability to grab my phone, hold the stop sign and, and do all these things. We'll put the kids in further danger. So I think there are, there are instances of, of where this works really well, and I understand 99% of traffic enforcement is not used, or, uh, excuse me, traffic enforcement vehicles are marked and unmarked aren't used. But there are occasions, um, where they are, are very important and, and they hold a, uh, another tool on our belt. So for those reasons, I oppose the bill. Thank you.

  40. Committee chair2:15:29

      Thank you. We're gonna close the public hearing and bring it back to the committee for action. Anyone, Senator Escamilla.

  41. Sen. Luz Escamilla2:15:43

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I, I, you know, I, I think you're, we're getting somewhere and it's not gonna happen in this meeting, but I, I think the bill needs to keep on moving 'cause of timing. I will say, um, and ask the, the good sponsor to hopefully get to that wording that gives that law enforcement the peace of mind to act when they need to act. I, I, I do believe there's still, um, things that we can do to make sure, um, we are protecting also people's ability to feel safe in interacting with unmarked vehicles. And I think that's what the bill does. And with traffic violations, I think that's small enough. But I can see some of the examples. I I believe they're important. So if, you know, I I, I wanna make the motion that we support the bills. Um, is it second Well, do we have to adopt the substitute?

  42. Committee chair2:16:33

      No, we don't need to. You'll work it on it.

  43. Sen. Luz Escamilla2:16:36

      So, um, well, no, but let, let me adopt it 'cause it's better, I guess, for them at this point. And I wanna, Here's, here's what I, oh, sorry. Um, so let me make the motion to adopt that. Um, and I just lost the bill. I don't know if it's the

  44. Committee chair2:16:50

      First. We have a motion, motion to adopt substitute one on Senate bill 2 62. Dis discussion. That motion. Senator Musselman? No, no. My bad. O Okay. All right. Discussion that motion. Senator McKay,

  45. Sen. Daniel McCay2:17:05

      I would ask us not to adopt that sub. And here's why I'm negotiating against myself with the first sub. My invitations with LELC and with the law enforcement community has been, would you like to talk and work out language? The response has been, no, thank you. We're just gonna oppose it. Because they think with their, you know, with their influence that they will just kill the bill. My, my proposal with this first sub was, Hey, this would be great language. Could you work with something like this? And the response says, nothing. So what I'd say is, I need this bill to move and I like it. I like the original version of the bill best, and I'd like to negotiate from that position. The first sub is an opportunity as an invitation to negotiate. So far, those negotiations have not been as fruitful as I would like them to be. How's that? So, um, but I'm ha I'm, either way, we can come up with good language. So,

  46. Sen. Luz Escamilla2:17:54

      Um, um, and Mr. Chair, thank you. If I can respond to that and, and I appreciate that part. And I, I will say, Senator, I, if I have to be part of those conversations, I'll be happy. Yeah. And I feel this shows good faith to the law enforcement community that I think both of us respect. Um, and, and we wanna work with 'em. So I, I will still move with my motion, Mr. Chair, but I

  47. Committee chair2:18:15

      Appreciate that. All in favor of the motion to sub say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Say nay. Nay, nay. Uh, will the aye raise their hands? Nays, that motion fails on a vote of three to four with Brammer Musman Cullimore. And we, they're voting in the negative. So we have the original bill before us. Um, Senator Musselman? No, go Ahead. Oh, okay. Anybody wanna make a motion? Senator Escamilla.

  48. Sen. Luz Escamilla2:18:44

      Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Make a motion that we support, um, SB 2 62 favorably, uh, and recommend to the floor.

  49. Committee chair2:18:52

      Alright, we have a motion to, uh, favorably recommend the bill. And will you waive summation? Senator McKay? Yeah, I waive. All in favor of the motion. Favorably recommend the original one and only Senate Bill 2 62 to the floor of the Senate. Say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? No chair that passes six to one with Senator Brammer voting the negative.

• Mar 3, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (29 turns)

  1. Sen. Daniel McCay55:52

     to substitute and there are a few substitutes online, so I'd like to make a motion that we adopt the third sub.

  2. President (presiding)56:01

     Okay. We have a motion to substitute. You wanna explain the changes?

  3. Sen. Daniel McCay56:05

     Yes. Uh, I've been meeting diligently with law enforcement trying to find a place where, um, they're not gonna set up speed traps just outside my house. And I think we've gotten to a place where, uh, they're less annoyed.

  4. President (presiding)56:26

     Okay. So I'm gonna place the motion. All in favor of the motion to substitute, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Rule that motion passes as a substitute is in front of a senator. Go ahead, Senator McKay to the bill.

  5. Sen. Daniel McCay56:46

     Thank you president. So the purpose of the bill is to end a practice of using unmarked vehicles for traffic enforcement. And the primary policy objective behind it is to focus on safety rather than enforcement. Research shows that having a police vehicle be noticeable, improves road safety. And I'm gonna quote a study, but I don't have the number in front of me, but it's 25 to 30% more than enforcement does. So that visibility just be having a police officer that is visible in traffic or on the side of the road slows down, makes drivers pay attention, uh, improves, uh, safety and improves, you know, as we improve visibility. And so when you use unmarked vehicles for patrol, you shift the perspective from in, from, uh, safety and encouraging safety to encouraging enforcement. And so it's just a simple mind shift. The bill itself, uh, just says that law enforcement agency is, uh, defined there, uh, will not use an unmarked vehicle and has a brief definition of what an unmarked vehicle. And then it gives permission in on line 37 for where, uh, for where an unmarked vehicle can be used. And if it's a public safety operation that is meant to address traffic violations in crosswalk enforcement, construction zones, DUI enforcement stop school buses or school zone enforcement or in accordance with. And the last pieces, uh, based on the ex, on the, on the driver's license. But other than those purposes, if the primary objective of the vehicle is for patrol or for speed trap or speed enforcement, those vehicles will be broadly marked so that they are focused on safety instead of focused on, uh, enforcement. And with that, Mr. President, I am happy to yield for questions on the bill.

  6. President (presiding)59:00

     Senator Owens.

  7. Sen. Derrin R. Owens59:04

     Thank you President. Uh, the sponsor agreed to yield, correct?

  8. President (presiding)59:09

     Correct. Go ahead.

  9. Sen. Derrin R. Owens59:11

     Thank you. Um, just wondering what law enforcement agencies the sponsor has that are on board with this bill?

  10. Sen. Daniel McCay59:19

      Well, Senator, Senator McKay Yes, on board is a great question. Um, like I said earlier, I think less annoyed is probably a better description of where everyone is. We have been working with the, uh, with the Sheriff's Association and we've been working with, uh, UHP, uh, they've reviewed the language and like I said, I think they're at a position of less annoyed, not necessarily in favor, but at the same time, this is always that balancing act, right? Where, and I know law enforcement likes to have as many tools available. If you'll remember many, many years ago, uh, ran language that was first in the nation for body cameras and body camera rules and policy. And the reason we ran it was because we saw the technology coming and, uh, certainly it has innovated and you know, has been, uh, and the policy has been phenomenal and has stand stood the test of time. What I'm looking at here is in the same situ in, in a similar vein, can we focus on visibility rather than focusing on enforcement? Now, they'll still be able to use it for you DUI enforcement. There are all the other purposes that are in there, but, uh, I don't know of any law enforcement agencies that have had the opportunity to meet yet since the sub was there to take a formal position one way or the other.

  11. President (presiding)1:00:39

      Senator Owens.

  12. Sen. Derrin R. Owens1:00:40

      Thank you Mr. President. I have, I have serious concerns with this bill. Um, I haven't heard from any law enforcement agency that like it at all. And in fact, the sponsor's using the correct word, it's law enforcement. Uh, it's not law safety. And, um, and I got to declare conflict of interest. I have a son who's in in law enforcement who, um, has no toleration for this bill at all. And what, what happens if we start legislating which laws to enforce and which not, and how, which vehicles to use and which not in which situations, I think we're going down a very slippery slope. Um, so I would urge that, uh, first of all, we find out which agencies are in favor. 'cause I haven't heard from any yet and heard, and I have 10 counties, and I heard from 10 sheriff who, um, absolutely said this would hinder their work. So, um, I I hope we can address that. Thank you.

  13. President (presiding)1:01:45

      Thank you, Senator Owen and Senator Escamilla. You

  14. Sen. Luz Escamilla1:01:50

      Thank you, Mr. President. Um, this bill was discussed at length. Our, our committee and I, I believe this is a, a need for this bill, actually is addressing a need. And that is an increase of impersonation of law enforcement and a very increased fear specifically by women when encountering individuals that are not in unmarked vehicles and unmarked clothing, which is actually happening. And it happens more often than what we think. Um, I know the sponsor agreed to work and I think he's made changes to make it very, very clear. No one is trying to stop law enforcement to do their job, but I, there are expectations of identifying themselves. There's nothing more fearful than driving at 11:00 PM coming from work and having a vehicle that you can't recognize if it's a, a police officer vehicle than someone in regular clothing coming out and asking a woman alone in a vehicle to, I mean, I just, the lack of response to the fear, um, worries me that there's no empathy for specifically women and younger women when engaging with law enforcement and not having an opportunity to, to see who this individuals are. I did hear from law enforcement about their concerns with undercover police work, which is very important, uh, specifically related to drug related work. But this will be only to be utilized for a traffic violation. They can still proceed to do what they need to do on their undercover work and utilize it if, because they will have that protection within the statute. I think the language already provides that protection to law enforcement to utilize what they need to do. No one's stopping them to do their undercover work. But if you're just passing by and wanna do a stop, you can always call into your, uh, into the patrol and the numbers. Uh, um, you know, and I, I had a chance actually to call during this weekend for a situation that was happening on the freeways to call our highway patrol office, um, and, and report an incident. They can always connect in section four and get another, um, trooper to come and assist that is already identifying him himself or herself. So I, I think this is a, a right approach is very limited, and it's just saying you probably should not be doing a traffic violation stop if you don't have a way to identify yourself. And I think it's moving us in the right direction. Thank you, Mr. President.

  15. President (presiding)1:04:28

      Thank you. Senator Brammer to the bill. Will the sponsor yield Senator McKay, I think has agreed to yield. Go ahead.

  16. Sen. Chris H. Wilson1:04:35

      Yeah. Um, not to him. Um, so if, if I am, if driving down the street and it's two o'clock at night and a car pulls up behind me and lights flash, what does it matter? Like how can I, how does it matter to me whether the car is marked with markings on the side or the hood versus it just being dark and at night, like it's dark? What's the difference?

  17. Sen. Daniel McCay1:05:13

      Senator McKay? Thank you. Um, Again, you know, we've seen, uh, and there are incidences now and we're seeing, you know, more of them occurring because on, uh, you know, websites, you can buy red and blue LED lights that you can install in your car. We are seeing an increase of incidents where people are using those red lights to pull people over. It really is unfortunate. Um, my original, this originally came to me from a constituent, um, who expressed concern, uh, that she was, uh, pulled over late at night and, uh, when she was pulled over late at night, uh, it was a vehicle on the side of the road. I was doing speed enforcement. Um, she apparently was speeding and got pulled over for, you know, whatever reason. And, uh, the individual that came up to talk to her was in a polo shirt and a pair of jeans, uh, was not very descrip. Uh, and, uh, or it wasn't obvious that it was a police officer despite the fact that the lights were there. Um, she described it as a traumatic experience, but, you know, that's one person's experience. And I think it's hard for us as men to put ourselves in the position of women in that situation. But I, you know, I heard her fear and as she described it, it was the next day that she called me frustrated about the issue. And that was, that was one of the things that I said, well, should we be using unmarked cars? And even if it's dark, whatever it is, either way, when you're driving down a road with specialized traffic enforcement, when you're, when your lights hit the side of that car, you know that it is a police officer so that when you get pulled over, you know that you're being pulled over by a police officer. That peace of mind is, is invaluable for, for, for the public. And that's really all this is, is night or day, it doesn't really matter. Someone is pulled over, they know that they're being pulled over, they have noticed that they're being pulled over, they have notice of the car. We are getting more sophisticated with our vehicles and the ability to hide in, uh, in with enforcement is getting more and more. Um, but I just look at this as there are some tools that are valuable. The most valuable tool is safety.

  18. Sen. Brady Brammer1:07:37

      I appreciate the answer. I, I guess as I think about it, typically at night, it's when a police officer just pulls up behind you, the lights flash, you pull over, there's a bright light shining into your rear view mirror or your side mirror. You can tell I've done this a lot. I was gonna say, I I've never had this experience. I dunno what you're talking About. You know, and, and so you typically can't see much behind you in any event other than the flashing lights. Now, the idea that people can have a, uh, you know, a, a light bar that mimics police officers. I mean, there was a jazz player that mimicked being a police officer, he put on a uniform. He tried to, to pull people over that, I mean, changing the tools of law enforcement because, because others are abusing and disguising themselves as law enforcement, simply makes no sense. Additionally, the idea that you may be able to see a marked car if you pass it, but if it comes up behind you at night, this bill makes no difference. It makes no distinction between the two. It is simply, you know, taking a tool away from law enforcement. And, uh, you know, while I think internal policy of a department may dictate that a law enforcement officer should probably not be in jeans and a polo that is unmarked at all times, or they could at least put the badge on their, on their hip or on their belt to, to perform in their role as a police officer. I, I just don't think that, and, and while I certainly understand and, and we all know Senator McKay is the Paragonah of empathy for, for those around him, uh, I, I just don't know that that that one story or, or a fear of people impersonating police officers is a valid reason to change this law. And so I would be opposed to it. Thank you.

  19. President (presiding)1:09:34

      Thank you. I'm gonna go to Senator Ipson.

  20. Sen. John D. Johnson1:09:38

      Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in opposition to this, which is probably no surprise to anyone, but you know, I I I sorry to admit, I've been stopped a lot in my lifetime. Careful, that's no surprise to anybody either. You can't appear yourself either. Well, I'm trying to bail myself out. So once that car comes up behind you, it lights you up. You don't know whether it's an unmarked car or it isn't. And there's no way to tell that. And, and the good senator just said, Knight makes it worse. But I can tell you, we can't take the tools away from law enforcement to do what they need to do. I, I talked with the safety commissioner recently, and he's on his way back from St. George in an unmarked car in a suit, and a car passes him at over a hundred miles an hour as he's supposed to not work traffic. Or is he a trooper before he is the commissioner and he goes and stops the car. We can't take that away from you. These all administrative cars in, in most departments are unmarked. If, if a stop happens, if a police officer finds it necessary that it's egregious enough that they stop somebody off duty and they happen to be in plain clothes, we can't stop 'em from doing that. They're a policeman 24 hours a day. We need to help these guys and not many manage how they run their department and which laws they enforce and how they do it. I'm adamantly opposed to this bill.

  21. President (presiding)1:11:37

      Thank you. Senator Sandall, uh, Ipsen. Senator Riebe.

  22. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe1:11:41

      Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, my father was a police officer growing up and we frequently joked around the table, don't do the crime if you don't wanna do the time. And you know, this is one of those bills. If you are violating a law, then you should be prepared to be caught. Um, although the genesis of this bill was people impersonating police officers. So if we really wanna provide public with a procedure on how to feel safe when they're getting pulled over, then that's what this bill should be. It should be a number you can call. I mean, I don't know anybody that doesn't have a phone in their car right now. It should be a, um, extra badge that they carry. It should be a number on a placard that they can display. I I think there's another way around this besides taking away a tool that police officers have. Uh, to Senator Ibsen's point, our peace officers, they're called peace officers, are there 24 7 and they can pull people over when they're not on duty. So, um, I'm concerned with this doesn't really get to the problem of what we're trying to solve. So I'm torn with which way I'm gonna go with this bill, but I think that when we think about trying to solve this problem, we're not really solving the problem. We're just taking away a tool.

  23. President (presiding)1:13:05

      Thank you now to Senator McKay for some motion summation and a motion.

  24. Sen. Daniel McCay1:13:09

      Thank you very much, president. Um, you know, it's interesting, uh, you know, trying to get through these. So there are a couple of hypotheticals I figured I'd address on line 27 in the bill. So I'd encourage everybody to look at it really quickly. Traffic infraction law means a law that is a violation that is classified as an infraction under 41 6, a traffic code or a local traffic ordinance. So in that scenario, a individual in, in one of the scenarios mentioned earlier, an individual going a hundred miles an hour, an unmarked vehicle could still pull that individual over because that is a misdemeanor. Now it is not a, an infraction. As a result, the unmarked vehicle would be able to pull them over. Same thing, unmarked vehicle passed by a DUI driver. They could pull 'em over, right? Nothing stops. The DUI Infra enforcement, all this says is having a primary enforcement mechanism on traffic patrol, all the vehicles have to be marked. And that's All it is, this is, this language was written in concert with sheriffs and I, I'm not sure if, if all 10 sheriffs of, you know, Senator Owens have reached out to him today, uh, after we've been working on the bill, as we all know, um, you know, deadlines are great and this is one of those, with this issue, we worked with a lot of people to get everybody to a position of don't hate. Uh, and, you know, that's, that's not a bad spot. Um, I don't know if you know, I, I think about, I look at the law enforcement code. We actually have a lot of limitations on law enforcement, on ways that we provide police services, on way that we finance it, on way that we actually do policing. We do not leave all the tools in the toolbox. One of the reasons we don't leave all the tools in the toolbox is the citizens deserve a balancing act in these tools so that they are, that their interests are protected. I the most famous of all of these is the prohibition against illegal searches and seizures. We have removed that from law enforcement's toolbox. Why? Because we want to put constraints around what law enforcement can enforce and how they enforce it. We don't want to give the government the ability to just walk into people's homes, start taking things or start, you know, uh, you know, we have standards up here for when a law enforcement officer can impound a car and what the guidelines are for when they can impound a car. We have guidelines up here, we just talked about this now for, you know, when it's appropriate to cite somebody that's riding a motorcycle that isn't licensed. You can go down the list. The code is rampant with people that have, um, you know, with ways that we have limited the tools of law enforcement. This limitation is just a balance for the people to say, let's end speed traps. They're not as useful a tool to create safety. And at the same time, let's leave it available for all the key things that are still mentioned in there. And, and, and for that purpose, Mr. President, under suspension of the rule, I will move the third substitute Senate Bill 2 62 pass.

  25. President (presiding)1:16:38

      Is That a motion to pass? Yes, sir. Question is, shall thirst substitute Senate Bill two sixty two pass Roll call Vote. Senator Vickers Baldy Lewin Bramer Bus Cullimore. Ms. Camilla Aye. Fillmore Grover Harper Hankins Ipson Johnson Quan McKay, Mikel Milner Musselman Owens Pitcher Plum Rebi Sandal Stevenson Stratton Vickers Weiler Wilson Winterton Grover Hankins Plum Weiler Stratton, president Adams No third substitute Senate Bill 2 62, having received eight yay votes, 18 nay votes three being absent shall be returned to the staff for filing.

  26. President (presiding)1:18:05

      Uh, do we have any other, uh, Senate bills that want to be uncircled on Second Senator Bus.

  27. Sen. Emily Buss1:18:15

      Thank you Mr. President. Motion to encircle Senate bill 2 47.

  28. President (presiding)1:18:20

      We have a motion to Uncer Senate Bill 2 47 Road funding amendments. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will the motion passes. The bill is encircle. Senator Bus.

  29. Sen. Emily Buss1:18:32

      Thank you Mr. President.