Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the SB31 Cellular Fraud topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Debate over harsher penalties for cellular‑phone cloning prompts House to table SB31 for fiscal review
Summary
Sponsors argued SB31 updates 1994 cellular‑fraud law to criminalize illegal scanning and cloning used by sophisticated criminals; other members questioned elevating penalties to second‑degree felony and whether the fiscal note understates prison impacts, leading the House to circle the bill for further analysis.
Sponsor Representative Scott N. Howell presented Senate Bill 31 as an update to Utah’s 1994 cellular‑fraud statute, telling the House the changes are intended to address increasingly sophisticated criminal uses of stolen or cloned cellular numbers.
"Drug cartel members and gang members who commit violent crimes are now using cellular phones... and cloning devices to steal your number," Howell said during his explanation. He said the bill would ban illegal scanning and cloning and elevate certain uses (when used to facilitate a felony) to higher felony classifications, shifting emphasis from financial loss to criminal facilitation.
Members raised several concerns. Representative Valentine questioned the leap from a class B misdemeanor to a second‑ or third‑degree felony and asked whether the Legislature intended to increase prison populations for what is often a technical offense. "If this truly... is such a grievous thing, are we going to be putting more people in prison?" Valentine asked, noting the fiscal note showed no fiscal impact.
Other members asked whether there are legitimate uses for scanners and whether the statute's language would inadvertently criminalize authorized activity; the sponsor replied the statute specifically targets illegal scanning and leaves authorized carrier and customer support uses intact.
After extended questioning about penalty severity and the accuracy of the fiscal analysis, a motion to circle (table) SB31 so fiscal analysts could re‑review the fiscal note was offered and carried. Members stressed the need for the fiscal analyst to reconcile whether increased penalties would create corrections costs that the current note does not reflect.
Outcome and next steps: The bill was circled (tabled) for further fiscal review and will return to committee or the floor only after the requested fiscal clarification and follow‑up by the sponsor or fiscal analyst.
(Direct quotes and attributions are taken from the House floor proceedings on Feb. 12, 1997.)
