Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate approves use‑immunity amendment to bill on professional disclosures to Board of Pardons
Summary
After extended debate, the Utah Senate passed an amendment to Senate Bill 2 that requires written summaries of therapist disclosures to inmates and adds a use‑immunity provision for therapeutic communications; the full bill then passed 25–3–1 and was sent to the House.
Senators voted to amend and then pass Senate Bill 2 after a lengthy floor debate over confidentiality and public safety in prison-based therapy.
The amendment, moved and explained by Senator Steiner, requires that when a therapist discloses concerns to the Board of Pardons a written summary be provided to the inmate and that certain communications made in the therapeutic relationship be protected from use in prosecution. “The purpose of this amendment is to support two principles,” Steiner said, framing the change as fairness to prisoner‑clients and support for the efficacy of therapy.
Opponents, including Senator Hilliard and Senator Baird, pressed the chamber on the first paragraph’s mandate that therapists give inmates a written summary, arguing it could undermine clinical practice and that stakeholder groups—corrections, prosecutors, and the Board of Pardons—had unresolved concerns. “I have some real concerns about the first paragraph mandating that,” Hilliard said, explaining objections about treatment process and record‑keeping.
Sponsors and other supporters countered that candid therapeutic disclosure aids rehabilitation and that the Board of Pardons already receives summaries as part of existing procedure. Senator Montgomery said the amendment was intended to balance public safety and therapeutic candor and urged the Senate to support the bill.
The chair put the amendment and later the bill to a roll call. The Senate recorded the final tally for Senate Bill 2 as 25 yeas, 3 nays and 1 absence; the clerk announced the bill passed and was sent to the House for further action.
The Legislature did not adopt additional language on implementation timing or a technical carve‑out for specific clinical records during floor debate; sponsors referenced ongoing coordination with the Board of Pardons.
