state exclusionary rule in Utah

2017The state exclusionary rule was first recognized over twenty-five years ago in State v. Larocco , 794 P.2d 460 (Utah 1990), and it was then reaffirmed, a year later, in State v. Thompson , 810 P.2d 415 (Utah 1991). 19 Until such time as the continued viability of that rule is squarely before us, we should respect our precedent and decline to revise it unnecessarily.

1992We conclude that the state exclusionary rule adopted by this court in State v. Larocco, 794 P.2d 460 (Utah 1990), applies to hearings before the Commission under the Act. *11 Under the exclusionary rule, evidence is inadmissible in some proceedings if it is seized in violation of the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

2021Spackman v. Bd. of Educ., 2000 UT 87, ¶ 20 , 16 P.3d 533 ; see also UTAH CODE § 68-3-1 (adopting the common law of England); State v. Rowan, 2017 UT 88, ¶ 30 , 416 P.3d 566 (Himonas, J., concurring) (explaining that if this court repudiated the state exclusionary rule, there would be ―a void that would have to be filled by our courts‘ exercising their common law authority unless and until the legislature chose to intervene‖). 25 IN RE SEX CHANGE Opinion of the Court declaratory judgment actions‖ used by courts ―do not appear anywhere in the Act‖). ¶53 We are not ―mak[ing] pure policy out of wh

2021Spackman v. Bd. of Educ., 2000 UT 87, ¶ 20 , 16 P.3d 533 ; see also UTAH CODE § 68-3-1 (adopting the common law of England); State v. Rowan, 2017 UT 88, ¶ 30 , 416 P.3d 566 (Himonas, J., concurring) (explaining that if this court repudiated the state exclusionary rule, there would be ―a void that would have to be filled by our courts‘ exercising their common law authority unless and until the legislature chose to intervene‖). 25 IN RE SEX CHANGE Opinion of the Court declaratory judgment actions‖ used by courts ―do not appear anywhere in the Act‖). ¶53 We are not ―mak[ing] pure policy out of wh

2021Spackman v. Bd. of Educ., 2000 UT 87, ¶ 20 , 16 P.3d 533 ; see also UTAH CODE § 68-3-1 (adopting the common law of England); State v. Rowan, 2017 UT 88, ¶ 30 , 416 P.3d 566 (Himonas, J., concurring) (explaining that if this court repudiated the state exclusionary rule, there would be ―a void that would have to be filled by our courts‘ exercising their common law authority unless and until the legislature chose to intervene‖). 25 IN RE SEX CHANGE Opinion of the Court declaratory judgment actions‖ used by courts ―do not appear anywhere in the Act‖). ¶53 We are not ―mak[ing] pure policy out of wh

2021Spackman v. Bd. of Educ., 2000 UT 87, ¶ 20 , 16 P.3d 533 ; see also UTAH CODE § 68-3-1 (adopting the common law of England); State v. Rowan, 2017 UT 88, ¶ 30 , 416 P.3d 566 (Himonas, J., concurring) (explaining that if this court repudiated the state exclusionary rule, there would be ―a void that would have to be filled by our courts‘ exercising their common law authority unless and until the legislature chose to intervene‖). 25 IN RE SEX CHANGE Opinion of the Court declaratory judgment actions‖ used by courts ―do not appear anywhere in the Act‖). ¶53 We are not ―mak[ing] pure policy out of wh

2017Because stare decisis is "a cornerstone of Anglo-American jurisprudence that is crucial to the predictability of law and the fairness of adjudication," State v. Thurman , 846 P.2d 1256 , 1269 (Utah 1993), "we do not overrule our precedents lightly," State v. Guard , 2015 UT 96 , ¶ 33, 371 P.3d 1 (internal quotation marks omitted).

2017The state exclusionary rule was first recognized over twenty-five years ago in State v. Larocco , 794 P.2d 460 (Utah 1990), and it was then reaffirmed, a year later, in State v. Thompson , 810 P.2d 415 (Utah 1991). 19 Until such time as the continued viability of that rule is squarely before us, we should respect our precedent and decline to revise it unnecessarily.

2017In my opinion, "[b]efore embarking on a review of the constitutional principles underlying ... [the state exclusionary rule], proper concern for stare decisis joins with our long-standing policy of avoiding unnecessary constitutional decisions to counsel that a decision on the continuing vitality of ...[the state exclusionary rule] be avoided unless it is really necessary." Elkins v. Moreno , 435 U.S. 647 , 660-61, 98 S.Ct. 1338 , 55 L.Ed.2d 614 (1978).

2017In my opinion, "[b]efore embarking on a review of the constitutional principles underlying ... [the state exclusionary rule], proper concern for stare decisis joins with our long-standing policy of avoiding unnecessary constitutional decisions to counsel that a decision on the continuing vitality of ...[the state exclusionary rule] be avoided unless it is really necessary." Elkins v. Moreno , 435 U.S. 647 , 660-61, 98 S.Ct. 1338 , 55 L.Ed.2d 614 (1978).

2017Because stare decisis is "a cornerstone of Anglo-American jurisprudence that is crucial to the predictability of law and the fairness of adjudication," State v. Thurman , 846 P.2d 1256 , 1269 (Utah 1993), "we do not overrule our precedents lightly," State v. Guard , 2015 UT 96 , ¶ 33, 371 P.3d 1 (internal quotation marks omitted).

2017Because stare decisis is "a cornerstone of Anglo-American jurisprudence that is crucial to the predictability of law and the fairness of adjudication," State v. Thurman , 846 P.2d 1256 , 1269 (Utah 1993), "we do not overrule our precedents lightly," State v. Guard , 2015 UT 96 , ¶ 33, 371 P.3d 1 (internal quotation marks omitted).

2011In light of our important role in interpreting the Utah Constitution, see State v. Tiedemann, 2007 UT 49, ¶ 33 , 162 P.3d 1106 (noting our "authority and obligation to interpret Utah's constitutional guarantees"), it seems more than appropriate to address this issue in a case that squarely presents it in extensive, careful briefing by the parties and their amicus, see State v. Earl, 716 P.2d 803, 806 (Utah 1986) ("'It is imperative that Utah lawyers brief this Court on relevant state constitutional questions."). .

2011In light of our important role in interpreting the Utah Constitution, see State v. Tiedemann, 2007 UT 49, ¶ 33 , 162 P.3d 1106 (noting our "authority and obligation to interpret Utah's constitutional guarantees"), it seems more than appropriate to address this issue in a case that squarely presents it in extensive, careful briefing by the parties and their amicus, see State v. Earl, 716 P.2d 803, 806 (Utah 1986) ("'It is imperative that Utah lawyers brief this Court on relevant state constitutional questions."). .

1992Our recent opinion in Sims v. Collection Division of the Utah State Tax Commission, 841 P.2d 6 (Utah 1992), governs this issue.

1992Our recent opinion in Sims v. Collection Division of the Utah State Tax Commission, 841 P.2d 6 (Utah 1992), governs this issue.