House rejects bill that would let investigators obtain bank records without court orders

House members debated House Bill 267, legislation intended to standardize how financial institutions provide records to investigators. The bill, drafted after a 1994 task force that included banks, government agencies and law enforcement, distinguishes ‘‘non-protected’’ records (for example, account existence, account numbers, safe-deposit box indicators, identifying information) from ‘‘protected’’ records and would allow investigative agencies to obtain non-protected records via written request rather than a court order.

Attorney Hetman spoke in opposition, urging members to consider the law from the perspective of a bank customer and warning the bill ‘‘does away with’’ prior requirements that a court order be obtained before substantive account information is disclosed. He described the proposed definitions as expansive, noting that account existence, account numbers, signers, addresses, dates of birth and Social Security numbers are included in the non-protected category.

Supporters said the task force and the Utah Bankers Association recommended the language as balancing privacy and the needs of investigations, and that the bill includes protections for financial institutions and defines the authority of agencies seeking records. Proponents argued the change would make investigations more cost- and time-effective while providing liability safeguards for banks.

The House held a roll-call vote; the clerk announced the tally of 19 yes and 53 no votes, and the bill failed under that tally as recorded in the floor transcript.

Next steps: The transcript records the vote results on the floor; any further action (reconsideration, amendment or reintroduction) would appear in subsequent entries of the House journal.