The “Federal-Origin Exception” to Utah’s EIDPA Suppression Rule
In-Depth Commentary on State v. Andrus, 2025 UT 32 (Supreme Court of Utah)

1. Introduction

State v. Andrus presented Utah’s high court with a multi-faceted appeal arising out of an adult’s lengthy online and in-person sexual relationship with a sixteen-year-old. While the factual narrative is disturbing, the opinion’s lasting legal importance lies in two doctrinal flash-points:

1. How Utah’s Electronic Information or Data Privacy Act (“EIDPA”) interacts with federal law-enforcement subpoenas, and,
2. The elements of human trafficking of a child under Utah Code § 76-5-308.5, particularly whether an offer of value suffices.

Dustin Giles Andrus (“Timothy” online) was convicted of multiple felonies after state detectives, working on an FBI Child Exploitation Task Force, used federal administrative subpoenas to connect anonymised Snapchat/TextNow accounts to him. On appeal he argued—inter alia—that:

• The evidence should have been suppressed under EIDPA because state officers had outsourced subpoena power to the FBI instead of following Utah’s Subpoena Powers Statute.
• The proof did not support convictions for human trafficking, sexual exploitation, and distribution of marijuana.
• Admission of Summit County evidence violated Rule 404(b).

The Supreme Court of Utah vacated the human-trafficking count but affirmed the remaining convictions, and—most significantly—carved out a new “federal-origin” exception to EIDPA’s exclusionary rule.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Majority opinion by Chief Justice Durrant (joined by Pearce, Petersen, and Hagen); concurrence/dissent by Justice Pohlman.

Key Holdings

1. EIDPA Suppression: When federal officers lawfully obtain electronic records under federal law and subsequently share them with Utah authorities—even at the request of state officers—EIDPA § 105 does not compel suppression. This creates a “federal-origin exception.”
2. Utah Constitution: Art. I § 14 does not require suppression of evidence secured via valid federal subpoenas.
3. Human Trafficking of a Child: The phrase “commercial sexual activity” requires that something of value is actually given or received; mere offers are insufficient. Conviction vacated.
4. Sexual Exploitation of a Minor: Jury could reasonably infer that Andrus secured the creation of nude photos; conviction stands.
5. Distribution of Controlled Substance: Victim’s lay testimony sufficed to identify marijuana; directed-verdict motion properly denied.
6. Rule 404(b): Summit County sexual evidence admissible for identity narrative; any error regarding marijuana/alcohol evidence was harmless.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents & Statutes Discussed

• Utah EIDPA, Utah Code §§ 77-23c-101 et seq.
• Utah Subpoena Powers Statute, Utah Code §§ 77-22-1 to -5.
• 18 U.S.C. § 3486: Federal administrative subpoena authority for child-exploitation investigations.
• 18 U.S.C. § 2703/2702: Stored Communications Act disclosure provisions.
• Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) & Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960) (federal–state exclusionary-rule interplay).
• Prior Utah cases on sufficiency standards (Stricklan, Brierley), Rule 404(b) (Lucero, Thornton).

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

a) Interpreting EIDPA §§ 104-105

The majority acknowledged that EIDPA’s text bars Utah officers from obtain[ing], use[ing], copy[ing], or disclos[ing] subscriber records except via a court-ordered subpoena (or explicit statutory exceptions). Yet, the exclusionary remedy in § 105 is triggered only when the records of a service provider are obtained in violation of the Act.

Focusing on the preposition of, the Court read “records of a provider” to mean records physically obtained from, or still in the possession of, that provider. Because the FBI—not the provider—handed over the material, the majority deemed § 105 inapplicable.

The opinion stressed policy considerations: multi-jurisdictional task-forces routinely rely on federal subpoena power; requiring Utah officers to duplicate already-lawful federal process would hamper investigations without clear legislative command. Finding silence on cross-border sharing, the Court held the legislature had not clearly intended suppression in such scenarios.

b) Validity of the Federal Subpoenas

Subpoenas issued under 18 U.S.C. § 3486 are permissible “in any investigation of a federal offense involving sexual exploitation or abuse of children.” Because potential federal crimes (enticement, child-pornography) were under review, subjective motives of the state detective were irrelevant; the statutory nexus rendered the subpoenas valid.

c) Utah Constitutional Claim

Defendant conceded a search is reasonable if predicated on a valid warrant or subpoena. With federal subpoenas deemed valid, Art. I § 14 was not violated.

d) Human-Trafficking Clarification

Comparing § 76-5-308.5 with the sexual-solicitation statute (§ 76-10-1313), the Court held that commercial sexual activity demands an actual exchange of value. Otherwise, solicitation of a child (now a 2nd-degree felony) captures mere offers.

3.3 Impact of the Decision

i. Immediate Practical Effects

• Law-Enforcement Cooperation: Utah officers embedded on federal task forces may freely use federal subpoenas for Utah prosecutions, so long as federal process is itself lawful.
• Suppression Motions: Defense counsel must now scrutinise whether federal subpoenas complied with federal law; compliance alone defeats an EIDPA claim.
• Charging Practices: Prosecutors must prove an actual quid-pro-quo to sustain human-trafficking of a child; otherwise, child-solicitation charges are appropriate.

ii. Doctrinal Significance

1. Federal-Origin Exception: Establishes binding precedent that EIDPA’s exclusionary rule is not triggered where records originate from a lawful federal process, even if state officers instigate the request.
2. Statutory Silence as Permission: Reinforces Utah appellate courts’ willingness to treat legislative silence on inter-jurisdictional evidence-sharing as authorisation rather than prohibition.
3. Clarified Elements of Child Trafficking: By requiring actual consideration, the Court brought Utah precedent in line with federal TVPA jurisprudence and reduced overlap with solicitation statutes.

iii. Potential Future Litigation & Legislation

• The dissent (Justice Pohlman) invites legislative response; lawmakers may amend EIDPA to reassert exclusivity or expressly recognise interstate sharing rules.
• Defendants may test the outer limits: What if federal officers act purely at state behest? What if federal process is defective? The opinion leaves those scenarios open.
• Expect renewed focus on record-creation vs. record-possession distinctions when digital privacy statutes are drafted.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

EIDPA (Utah)

A 2019 statute prescribing when Utah law-enforcement may compel or access electronic data. Violations trigger suppression akin to Fourth-Amendment breaches.

Subscriber Record

Basic identifying/back-end info—name, IP address, phone number—held by a service provider.

Federal Administrative Subpoena

Issued by agencies (e.g., FBI) without judicial approval under specific statutes (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3486). Compels production of records for designated investigations.

Exclusionary Rule

Judicial doctrine barring illegally obtained evidence, plus “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Section 105 adopts this rule statutorily.

Motion to Arrest Judgment vs. Directed Verdict

Arrest Judgment challenges legal sufficiency after verdict; Directed Verdict is sought mid-trial after prosecution rests.

Rule 404(b)

Evidentiary rule excluding prior bad-acts offered purely to show character, but permitting them for identity, motive, etc.

5. Conclusion

State v. Andrus reshapes Utah’s digital-privacy landscape on two fronts. First, it carves out a federal-origin exception to EIDPA’s suppression remedy, signalling judicial deference to established collaborative practices between state and federal officers. Second, it tightens the definition of commercial sexual activity in child-trafficking cases, demanding tangible exchange rather than mere inducement.

Together the majority and dissent form a dialogue: the majority privileges inter-agency efficiency absent explicit legislative prohibition; the dissent champions statutory text that, in its view, unambiguously protects privacy regardless of record provenance. Until the legislature speaks again, Andrus stands as the authoritative guide—permitting Utah prosecutors to rely on federally obtained electronic records while warning that human-trafficking charges require proof of an actual quid-pro-quo.

© 2025 Commentary prepared for educational purposes. All quotations are from public-domain court documents.