Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice Search And Seizure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate advances SJR 13 after hours of testimony and debate on Utah exclusionary rule
Summary
The Utah Senate advanced SJR 13 to the third‑reading calendar after testimony from legal experts and county prosecutors urging a constitutional amendment to limit the state exclusionary rule; the floor debate split on whether the change would reduce protections for state citizens.
Senators voted to advance Senate Joint Resolution 13 to third reading after extended floor debate and expert testimony over whether Utah should curtail the state exclusionary rule and align state search‑and‑seizure law more closely with federal standards. Sponsor Senator Brent Richards said the amendment would prevent courts from excluding valid evidence under Article I, Section 14 of the Utah Constitution when federal law permits its use.
The Senate heard a panel of witnesses that included a law professor introduced by the sponsor, and county prosecutors who urged support. Professor Cassell (introduced to the body as the academic who recently wrote on the subject) argued Utah’s independent exclusionary doctrine has created a body of law “subject to reexamination” and has produced a flood of related claims in criminal cases. Gary Hubert, a line prosecutor, and Mel Wilson, Davis County attorney, told senators the current doctrine complicates prosecutions and can lead to suppression of evidence obtained in good faith. David Yoakam, representing the Statewide Association of Prosecutors, said the amendment would give Utah voters an opportunity to decide and would “set aside that body of law that is developed on the state under article 1 section 14,” while preserving federal Constitutional protections.
Opponents cautioned that the Utah Supreme Court had been an important source of additional protections for citizens and that removing the state exclusionary rule could reduce safeguards beyond what the federal Constitution guarantees. Senator Steiner, citing conversations with defense counsel, noted Utah’s courts are cited nationally for extending protections and urged caution. Senators asked whether the Supreme Court had been asked to reconsider its decisions and whether legislative action was the appropriate remedy.
Richards summarized the measure by saying it would stop the exclusion of valid evidence on the basis of the state constitutional provision and allow the Legislature to make later fine‑tuning by statute. After questions and closing remarks, a call for the question passed. The clerk recorded the third‑reading tally as 29 ayes, no nays; SJR 13 was placed on the third‑reading calendar.
The next procedural step is third reading; the resolution’s proposal — a change to the state constitution — would also require voter approval if it ultimately reaches and passes subsequent legislative steps.
