Lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee adopted a second substitute to House Bill 171 on victim and witness privacy, directing procedures for handling sensitive digital data obtained from victims and witnesses in criminal investigations.

The bill’s presenters, including Carl Holland of the attorney general’s office, told the committee that widespread forensic “Cellebrite” downloads of phones produce large amounts of private information — from naked photos to running routes — much of which may not be relevant to a given prosecution. Holland said the substitute seeks a “scalpel-like approach” to partition discovery: automatically produce information that is clearly germane, and create a controlled-review process for sensitive materials that are not obviously relevant but may be subject to defense challenges.

The committee heard that the substitute requires prosecutors to affirmatively turn over certain categories of data up front when it is plainly germane, and to provide a mechanism for defense counsel and their experts to review other sensitive data at a law-enforcement facility or controlled environment. Holland and other presenters framed the change as modeled in part on Utah’s child sexual-abuse‑material practice adopted in 2023, where defendants may view certain material only at a secure location.

Multiple stakeholder groups told the committee they supported the concept but asked for continued refinement. Mark Moffett, representing the Defense Lawyers Association, said he appreciated the sponsor’s outreach and said defense counsel needs access to evidence to investigate and to subpoena third-party records; he expressed concern that new statutory privacy rights could have longer-term effects on defense investigations. Richard Marr of the Salt Lake Legal Defender Association said defense attorneys do not seek irrelevant private content but warned the changes raise broader procedural questions about how to share digital evidence under Rule 16 and comparable discovery rules.

Victims’ advocates and some prosecutors expressed support. Marlise Jones of the Victim Services Commission and Ryan Robinson (prosecutor and SWAP policy director) said the substitute struck a workable balance and could make victims more willing to report crimes. Michael Drexel of the Administrative Office of the Courts asked that procedural components be aligned with court rules, noting that discovery and subpoena processes are typically governed by Rule 16 and should be reflected in procedure as well as statute.

Committee action: Representative Auxier moved to adopt the second substitute; the committee adopted it by voice vote. Representative Ochs then moved that the committee favorably recommend the second substitute of HB 171; that recommendation passed by voice vote as well.

Why it matters: presenters said extensive phone downloads can expose victims to renewed harm when irrelevant, highly sensitive personal data circulates in discovery; the substitute aims to preserve defendants’ access to evidence while protecting victims’ privacy through controlled review procedures and upfront production of clearly germane material.

Ending: The sponsor said the work would continue after committee approval; lawmakers and stakeholders asked for further adjustments to align statutory language and court rules before floor action.