SB 99 amends Utah’s criminal code provisions on emergency reporting abuse and related misuse of emergency response systems. The bill expands the offense to cover a person who contacts 911 when they know, or reasonably should know, that no actual or perceived emergency, crime, or other public-safety threat exists, so long as the person has already been told by a dispatcher, law enforcement officer, or prosecutor that the matter is not appropriate for 911. It also retains and reorganizes existing prohibitions on false emergency reports, including false reports involving imminent threats and false allegations tied to sex-designated changing rooms, and it moves the definition of “party line” into the statute where it is used.
Impact
The bill amends Sections 76-9-105.5 and 76-9-105.6 of the Utah Code, broadening the circumstances under which misuse of 911 and other emergency reporting channels can be prosecuted. It classifies the new 911 misuse offense as a class B misdemeanor, keeps false emergency reports as a class B misdemeanor or second-degree felony depending on the conduct, and preserves the class C misdemeanor for misuse of a party line or public pay telephone. It also requires courts to order reimbursement of response costs to governments, businesses, organizations, or individuals harmed by the false or improper report, with limited discretion to reduce that amount.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill was received favorably in committee, with two Senate committee votes of 6-0 supporting substitute and favorable recommendations. The absence of recorded opposition in the provided materials indicates general support for the bill’s goal of discouraging misuse of emergency services and recovering response costs. No committee transcript is available, so the broader debate cannot be fully assessed from the provided record.
Contention
The main policy issue appears to be the new offense covering calls to 911 about non-emergencies after prior notice that the matter is not appropriate for emergency dispatch. Supporters likely view this as a tool to reduce misuse of 911 and protect emergency resources, while potential concerns could center on whether the “reasonably should know” standard and prior-warning requirement could be applied too broadly or chill borderline calls. The bill also continues to reference false reports involving sex-designated changing rooms, which may be a point of controversy in broader discussions even though no transcript is provided here.