UT: Exclusionary rule does not apply to child welfare proceedings

The exclusionary rule does not apply to child welfare proceedings. The father was accused of possession of child pornography involving his own daughter and her friends, and the state sued to deny him access to them. Whether the search was valid isn’t even decided. State in Interest of A.O., 2014 UT App 242, 2014 Utah App. LEXIS 244 (October 17, 2014):

[*P11] Although the Utah Supreme Court, in applying the requirements of the United States Constitution, has made it clear that Utah courts should not apply the exclusionary rule in child welfare proceedings, see In re A.R., 1999 UT 43, ¶ 23, 982 P.2d 73, Father urges us to fashion a more broadly applicable exclusionary rule based on the Utah Constitution. We decline to do so.

. . .

[*P14] Not only are a parent’s privacy rights subordinate in a child welfare proceeding to a child’s safety, but the Utah Supreme Court has further determined that the relative value of the exclusionary rule as a deterrent is greatly diminished [**9] as well:

There appears to be little likelihood that any substantial deterrent effect on unlawful police intrusion would be achieved by applying the exclusionary rule to child protection proceedings. Whatever deterrent effect there might be is far outweighed by the need to provide for the safety and health of children in peril.

Id. ¶ 21.

[*P15] Thus, the nature of a child welfare proceeding remains the same in relation to the Utah Constitution as it is to the United States Constitution, and the same reasoning serves to make the exclusionary rule inapplicable under either analysis, even if the scope of the constitutional privacy protection is more expansive under the state constitution. Accordingly, we conclude that the juvenile court was correct in determining that the exclusionary rule does not apply in child welfare proceedings under either the United States or Utah constitution. It was therefore proper for the juvenile court to deny Father’s motion to suppress the key evidence against him.