Exclusionary Rule Under Utah’s EIDPA: Federal Subpoenas and State Evidence Sharing

Introduction

State v. Andrus (2025 UT 15) is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Utah addressing the scope of Utah’s Electronic Information or Data Privacy Act (EIDPA) exclusionary rule. Dustin Giles Andrus was convicted by a Davis County jury for sexual exploitation of a minor, distribution of a controlled substance, and human trafficking of a child after engaging in a prolonged sexual relationship with a 16-year-old girl. On appeal, Andrus challenged the admission of subscriber records obtained through federal administrative subpoenas, the sufficiency of the State’s evidence on several counts, and the admissibility of evidence of uncharged conduct. The Court clarified when EIDPA’s exclusionary rule applies and resolved challenges to evidence sufficiency and rule 404(b) evidence.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Utah held:

EIDPA’s Exclusionary Rule: Evidence lawfully obtained by federal officers through valid federal administrative subpoenas and then shared with state officers is not subject to suppression under Utah’s EIDPA.
Utah Constitutional Claim: The Utah Constitution’s search and seizure protections did not require suppression of evidence obtained via valid federal subpoenas.
Human Trafficking Conviction: Vacated. The statute requires proof that “anything of value” was actually given or received in exchange for a sexual act; mere offers are insufficient.
Sexual Exploitation Conviction: Affirmed. A reasonable jury could find that Andrus directed the minor to produce nude images for him.
Controlled Substance Conviction: Affirmed. Lay testimony regarding recognition of marijuana and its effects provided competent evidence.
Rule 404(b) Evidence: Evidence of Summit County conduct was either admissible for identity and corroboration or its admission was harmless error.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

State v. Clark, 2011 UT 23 – Applying the law in effect when the regulated event occurred.
18 U.S.C. § 3486(a)(1) – Federal administrative subpoenas for child exploitation investigations.
18 U.S.C. § 2703 – Federal electronic records production.
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) & Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960) – Exclusionary rule under federal and state constitutions.
Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (1984) – Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
State v. Stricklan, 2020 UT 65 – Standards for directed verdict and arrest of judgment.
State v. Lucero, 2014 UT 15 & Uta. R. Evid. 404(b) – Admissibility of other-acts evidence.

2. Legal Reasoning

EIDPA Exclusionary Rule: EIDPA § 77-23c-104(2) prohibits state officers from obtaining subscriber records without following Utah’s Subpoena Powers Statute. EIDPA § 77-23c-105 makes evidence “obtained in violation” of EIDPA subject to suppression. The Court held that “obtained in violation” refers only to records directly procured from providers by state officers without EIDPA compliance. When federal officers validly acquire records under federal law and share them with state officers, EIDPA’s prohibitions and exclusionary rule do not apply. The federal subpoenas in this case were authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3486(a)(1) because the investigation involved potential federal child‐exploitation offenses.

Utah Constitution: Andrus conceded that a valid subpoena or warrant makes a search reasonable. Because the federal subpoenas were valid, no Utah constitutional suppression was required.

Sufficiency of the Evidence:

Human Trafficking of a Child: Vacated. The jury needed proof that “anything of value” was actually exchanged for sexual acts, not merely offered.
Sexual Exploitation of a Minor: Affirmed. Testimony and text messages supported a finding that Andrus directed the minor to produce nude images.
Distribution of a Controlled Substance: Affirmed. The minor’s testimony that she recognized and smoked marijuana supplied competent evidence.

Rule 404(b) Evidence: Evidence of uncharged Summit County sexual activity and the minor’s underwear was intrinsic to identity and narrative—admissible to link Andrus to his alias “Timothy.” Evidence of later alcohol and drug items was either permissible corroboration or harmless error under the Rule 404(b) balancing test.

3. Impact

This decision clarifies that EIDPA’s statutory exclusionary rule is not triggered by subscriber records lawfully obtained by federal law enforcement under federal law and shared with Utah officers.
It preserves state–federal law enforcement collaboration on child exploitation cases, recognizing the practical need for speed and efficiency in obtaining third-party records.
The Court’s interpretation may prompt the Utah Legislature to amend EIDPA if it wishes to bar evidence-sharing from federal authorities.
Lower courts will apply the refined test for EIDPA suppression and ensure that a value exchange is proven for human trafficking of minors.

Complex Concepts Simplified

EIDPA vs. Subpoena Powers Statute: EIDPA § 104 sets rules for state police to get electronic records. It says they need a court-issued subpoena or meet narrow exceptions. If they don’t, the evidence must be suppressed under § 105.
Federal Administrative Subpoena: A tool under 18 U.S.C. § 3486 allowing federal agents to compel records when investigating child exploitation. Valid here because the probe covered potential federal offenses.
Exclusionary Rule: A legal remedy that bars evidence obtained contrary to EIDPA as if it violated the Fourth Amendment.
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree: Evidence derived from illegally obtained information can itself be excluded.
Rule 404(b): Bars “other-acts” evidence used to show bad character but allows it for identity, motive, or absence of mistake.
Directed Verdict & Arrest of Judgment: A verdict set aside post-trial when no reasonable juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

State v. Andrus establishes that Utah’s EIDPA exclusionary rule does not reach subscriber records lawfully obtained by federal officers under valid federal subpoenas and then shared with state officers. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed that collaboration between state and federal law enforcement remains permissible under EIDPA, so long as the initial collection complied with federal law. The Court vacated Andrus’s human trafficking conviction for failure to prove an actual exchange of value but affirmed his convictions for sexual exploitation of a minor and distribution of a controlled substance. The decision underscores the need for statutory clarity on cross-jurisdictional evidence-sharing and refines the standards for sufficiency of evidence in child exploitation cases.