UT: State’s use of federal administrative subpoena to gather records for state sex crime does not require suppression

Getting the feds to administratively subpoena records for a sex offense involving a minor allegedly in violation of the Utah Electronic or Data Privacy Act (EIDPA) didn’t require suppression. State v. Andrus, 2025 UT 32 (Aug. 7, 2025):

¶ 1 … First, he claims the state detectives who led the investigation in his case violated Utah’s Electronic Information or Data Privacy Act (EIDPA) when they asked federal officers to use federal administrative subpoenas to obtain electronic records linking him to the crime. And he argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress this illegally obtained evidence.

¶2 EIDPA provides a framework under which state law enforcement officers may obtain and use electronic records. It also includes an exclusionary rule that bars Utah courts from admitting evidence obtained in violation of its provisions. Based on the text and legislative history of the statute, we conclude that EIDPA’s exclusionary rule does not require courts to suppress evidence that federal law enforcement officers lawfully obtained from third-party service providers and then gave to state officers. And Andrus has not persuaded us that the Utah Constitution requires courts to suppress evidence obtained via lawful federal subpoenas. The trial court therefore did not err in denying Andrus’s motion to suppress.

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, State constitution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.