State v. Andrus
State v. Andrus, 2025 UT 15 (Durrant, C.J.)
Criminal
The Utah Supreme Court held:
- The district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress, but it did err in denying his motion to arrest judgment on human trafficking of a child.
- Justice Pohlman dissented and concluded that the statute’s plain language required exclusion of Defendant’s electronic records.
- Practice tip: Something of value must be exchanged to support a conviction for human trafficking of a child.
- Practice tip: The exclusionary rule in Utah’s Electronic Information or Data Privacy Act is not triggered when federal law enforcement officers lawfully obtain information through a federal subpoena and share it with state law enforcement.