Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Digital Evidence And Victim Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances cell-phone privacy bill after split testimony over defense access
Summary
House Bill 171 (fourth substitute) would limit copying of nonpublic, private data from victims' cell phones during discovery while preserving defense access to evidence. The committee approved the fourth substitute 3–1 after substantial testimony from prosecutors, victim advocates and defense attorneys who raised access concerns.
Representative Clancy presented the fourth substitute of House Bill 171, which is written to preserve vetting and discovery rights while restricting automatic copying of private, nonpublic data from a victim’s cellphone that is not relevant to the prosecution’s case. The sponsor said the policy mirrors protections in existing statute for child sexual-abuse material (CSAM) evidence: defendants’ counsel would retain access for review but would not automatically receive a copy of every downloaded item of private data.
Clancy gave the stalking-victim scenario used in committee discussions: even when a victim has never met an offender, a full forensic download can include private information — running routes, personal messages, photos — that become discoverable if provided as copies. The bill would require certain nonpublic data to be made available for inspection at a secure location rather than given as an unrestricted copy.
The hearing drew multiple stakeholders. Alyssa Black, chair of the Victim Services Commission, said victims’ privacy should be respected and supported the bill. The Salt Lake Legal Defender Association’s Richard Morrow said the concept is acceptable but that the current drafting and interaction with discovery rules (Rule 16) raises concerns and could generate litigation; he opposed the bill in its present iteration. Jeff Beeman, executive director of the Statewide Association of Prosecutors, and Stuart Young, deputy attorney general, said prosecutors and the Attorney General’s Office had worked with the sponsor and modeled the substitute after CSAM protections; Young said the defense would still have access and that the bill was modeled on prior CSAM statute. Steve Burton, representing the Defense Attorney Association, testified against the current draft, saying defense counsel might face unnecessary procedural hurdles to access evidence that could be exculpatory.
Committee members asked how defense counsel would review materials and what recourse would exist if important material was buried inside a broad forensic download. Clancy and prosecutors said defense counsel could view the evidence at a secure location and, if something relevant is discovered, standard discovery motions and Brady/Giglio obligations would apply.
In committee action, Senator Baldry moved to recommend favorably the fourth substitute of House Bill 171. The motion passed 3–1 (one senator recorded a “nay”), and the sponsor indicated he expected continued negotiations and might propose a floor amendment.
Votes at the committee
- Recommend favorably HB 171 (fourth substitute) to the full Senate: 3 yes, 1 no (committee tally recorded as passing).
