Utah Senate advances constitutional amendment to narrow state'level exclusionary rule after extended debate

Senators on Jan. 25 advanced a second substitute of Senate Joint Resolution 1, a proposed constitutional amendment intended to limit the scope of the Utah exclusionary rule and align the state'level standard for searches and seizures more closely with the U.S. Constitution.

Senator Brent Richards, who presented the measure, said the amendment would prevent "relevant evidence discovered in the course of a legal search" from being excluded under Utah's broader judicially created rule and that the change responds to court decisions that, in his view, have produced uneven standards and released criminal defendants on technicalities. He told colleagues the measure reflected research and drafting work by Professor Paul Cassell and input from the attorney general's office and county attorneys.

The bill's advocates argued it is a legislative fix to judicial expansion of exclusionary doctrine. "If police officers happen to discover evidence of criminal wrongdoing, that evidence should not be excluded merely on the basis of the technicality of how the information was discovered," said Senator Howard Stevenson in the floor debate in support of the resolution.

Opponents raised constitutional and procedural concerns. Senator Lyle Hilliard and others said the wording had not been through the constitutional revision commission and warned that single-judge concurrences in recent Utah Supreme Court cases complicate the legal precedent the resolution aims to correct. "When we start talking about constitutional amendments, you start arguing what they mean," Hilliard said, urging caution and more time to study drafting and downstream effects on civil proceedings.

Senator Michael Steiner and others said the legislature might prefer addressing the issue by statute rather than amending the constitution, and noted the risk that imprecise language could have unanticipated consequences in both criminal and civil cases.

Sponsor Richards responded to critics by citing case law (the Loraco and Thompson examples discussed on the floor) and reiterated that the draft had been revised with input from the attorney general's office and criminal-justice scholars to avoid unintended consequences. He emphasized the measure was intended to "back up our officers" and to give courts clearer guidance while not superseding U.S. constitutional protections.

The Senate voted to place the second substitute on the third-reading calendar after a recorded procedural vote (second substitute showed 26 ayes, 2 nays, 1 absent when placed on the third reading calendar). The resolution will require later floor action with a two-thirds threshold to reach the ballot for voter ratification.

What's next: The amendment remains on the Senate'third-reading calendar; its sponsors can expect further floor votes that will determine whether it goes before voters as a constitutional referendum.