Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate approves Drug Dealers Liability Act after debate over scope and proof standard
Summary
The Utah Senate passed Substitute Senate Bill 85, creating a civil cause of action against people who profit from illegal drug markets. Supporters said it helps recover costs and deter profiteers; opponents raised concerns that language could be overly broad. The amendment to narrow liability failed.
The Utah State Senate passed Substitute Senate Bill 85 on Feb. 5, 1996, creating a civil cause of action that would let family members, guardians, governmental entities or insurers sue persons who profit from illegal drug markets.
Senator Craig Taylor, sponsor of the measure, told colleagues the bill is intended to "take the profit out of it," allowing victims and public entities to recover costs associated with illegal drug use. Taylor said the measure excludes alcohol and is modeled on laws enacted in other states, including provisions that require proof that a defendant participated in the illegal drug market.
The debate focused on the bill's reach. Senator Steiner moved an amendment (page 4, lines 12–18) to narrow the bill’s target-market language, arguing the current language could expose persons with only remote connections to liability. Senator Taylor and other supporters opposed the amendment, saying the bill requires clear-and-convincing evidence of participation and specific linking conditions: (1) the defendant’s participation in the illegal drug market, (2) the same illegal drug involved in the injury, and (3) proximate time. Taylor emphasized the bill requires proof that a defendant distributed, possessed with intent to distribute, or otherwise participated in marketing or distribution.
Senators raised practical concerns: potential unintended consequences with forfeiture law; whether insurance companies or innocent property owners could be affected; and whether civil suits could reach family members or parental cases. Taylor said law-enforcement counsel had reviewed proportionality questions and that experience in other states suggested relatively few cases have been brought to date.
The Senate rejected Steiner’s narrowing amendment on a voice vote and then proceeded to a roll-call vote on the bill. Substitute Senate Bill 85 passed by roll call with 23 aye votes, 4 nay votes, and 2 absent, and was placed to be transmitted to the House for further consideration.
The next steps are routine transmission to the House and (if advanced there) eventual implementation details to be litigated and clarified through practice and possible future legislative amendments.
