HB 273 revises Utah’s rules for law enforcement access to “reverse-keyword” information, which is data that can identify unknown users who searched for particular terms or visited particular websites. The bill creates a new section of code governing when police may seek this information, generally requiring a search warrant and limiting access to investigations involving specified serious felony offenses or an imminent, ongoing threat to public safety. It also requires a prominent notice in warrant applications explaining the breadth of the request and the need to anonymize affected devices, and it allows courts to require anonymization before data is released to investigators.
The bill also updates related provisions for follow-on requests, identifying information, exceptions, use and destruction of data, and exclusion of unlawfully obtained information. It clarifies that reverse-keyword information is distinct from keyword information tied to a known person or device under Utah’s Electronic Information Privacy Act, and it preserves certain existing exceptions, including public records law, employer rights under specified labor rules, and access to information from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The bill takes effect May 7, 2025, and includes a sunset date in 2033 for certain notice provisions tied to related reverse-location warrant requirements.
Impact
HB 273 amends Title 77, Chapter 23f of the Utah Code to add a warrant framework specifically for reverse-keyword searches and to conform existing reverse-location provisions to that framework. It restricts law enforcement’s ability to obtain broad digital search data, requires probable cause and offense-based limits, mandates anonymization of device data, and directs destruction of unrelated information after a case ends. It also strengthens suppression/exclusion rules for information obtained in violation of the chapter, treating such evidence similarly to material obtained in violation of constitutional search-and-seizure protections.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial in the legislative process. It passed the House and Senate with unanimous committee votes and overwhelming floor support, with no recorded dissent in the provided voting history. That pattern suggests general agreement on the need to regulate law enforcement access to digital search data while preserving investigative tools for serious crimes and urgent public-safety threats.
Contention
No major opposition is reflected in the available record, but the bill’s main policy tension is between privacy interests and investigative access. The most notable limits are the warrant requirement, the restriction to certain serious felonies or imminent public-safety threats, and the anonymization mandate, all of which are designed to reduce the capture of innocent users’ data. Law enforcement interests are accommodated through exceptions for emergencies and recognized warrant exceptions, while privacy advocates would likely focus on the breadth of reverse-keyword collection and the need to prevent unrelated data from being used in other investigations.
In general provisions, further providing for definitions; and, in licensing of drivers, further providing for issuance and content of driver's license and for carrying and exhibiting driver's license on demand.
In general provisions, further providing for definitions; and, in licensing of drivers, further providing for issuance and content of driver's license and for carrying and exhibiting driver's license on demand.