Legislative Updates - 9 February 2026

<< All 2026 updates

GrassRoots

Committed to Promoting the Principles of Limited Government, Constitution, Representative Government, Participatory Republic, Free Market Economy, Family, and Separation of Powers

www.utahgrassroots.org

Utah GrassRoots Legislative Update—09 February 2026 (3 weeks into the 2026 General Session of the Utah State Legislature)

Contents:

• Pages 1-2: The Fourth Amendment and HB261: --House Bill 261 (HB261), “Electronic Information Privacy Act Amendments”.
• Pages 2-3: Another bill catching our attention this week: --HB286Substitute, “Artificial Intelligence Transparency Amendments”.
• Page 3: Updated bill status: --HB85, “State Sovereignty Amendments”, failed the Senate.

Dear Friends:

This is GrassRoots’ 3rd legislative update of this year’s General Session of the Utah State Legislature. At this time (3 weeks into the session), there are about 850 numbered bills for this session on the Utah Legislature website. Here are some bills and issues that we consider to be noteworthy.

The Fourth Amendment and HB261

United States Constitution, Fourth Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.” Utah State Constitution, Article I, Section 14: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.”

HB261, “Electronic Information Privacy Act Amendments”, sponsored by Representative Kyle, would:

• clarify and amend procedures and requirements for a law enforcement agency that seeks to obtain, use, copy, or disclose certain electronic information or records;
• provide that the procedures and requirements described in the Electronic Information Privacy Act (act) are the only permissible methods for a law enforcement agency to obtain, use, copy, disclose, or otherwise access certain electronic information or records;
• prohibit a law enforcement agency from contracting with or otherwise using a third party (including a federal agency, or an agency of any other state or country government--see lines 301-305) to obtain, use, copy, disclose, or otherwise access certain electronic information or records in a manner that the law enforcement agency would be prohibited from doing directly; and
• provides that electronic information or records obtained in violation of the applicable procedures and requirements of the act, as well as any evidence derived from the electronic information or records, are subject to the same rules governing exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of constitutional requirements.

HB261 awaits consideration by the House Judiciary Committee. There may be occasions for law enforcement agencies in Utah to cooperate with law enforcement agencies elsewhere. This can be helpful. However, we should be diligent to ensure that such cooperation is consistent with constitutional requirements. (As we should have learned from the history of asset forfeiture (one example of many), government agencies can be abusive of human rights.) GrassRoots favors a “yes” vote on HB261.

Another bill catching our attention this week:

HB286Substitute, “Artificial Intelligence Transparency Amendments”, sponsored by Representative Fiefia and Senator McKell, would:

• require developers of certain artificial intelligence models to create, implement, and publish public safety and child protection plans;
• require developers to publish summaries of risk assessments for certain artificial intelligence models;
• prohibit developers from making materially false or misleading statements about covered risks;
• require developers to report certain safety incidents to the Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy (office);
• require the office to provide annual assessments and legislative recommendations regarding regulation of certain artificial intelligence models;
• provide for rule-making by the office;
• establish civil penalties for violations;
• provide whistleblower protections for employees who report safety concerns of certain artificial intelligence models;
• establish remedies for employees who suffer adverse action for whistleblower activities;
• create the AI Transparency Enforcement Restricted Account (account) to fund enforcement activities;
• provide that “money collected by the attorney general from civil penalties, settlements, judgments, and other relief obtained in civil actions brought” would flow to the account (see lines 302-304); and
• provide a severability clause.

HB286Substitute passed the House Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee 8-0 on January 27th, and is circled on the House 3rd reading calendar. Some of the regulations proposed in this bill may be appropriate. But: We are concerned about the bill’s provision for rule-making by the Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy. This may be fine if the rules are entirely executive in their nature. If any rules made by said Office are legislative in their nature, then this would seem contrary to the Separation of Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Powers prescribed in Utah State Constitution, Article V, Section 1. We are curious about the bill’s provision for civil penalties for various alleged violations (see lines 291-296). Punishment should be inflicted by government after due process of law, including jury trial. Is the bill’s provision for civil penalties consistent with these requirements? (We are not here speaking against suing for actual damages.) We are against the proceeds of civil penalties being directed to the proposed AI Transparency Enforcement Restricted Account, rather than to the General Fund. Having such proceeds go directly to law enforcement may distort law enforcement priorities, and there is probably no good reason to have any monies going to this account, other than by appropriation by the Legislature. GrassRoots favors a “no” vote on HB286Substitute.

Updated bill status

HB85, “State Sovereignty Amendments”, sponsored by Representative Shepherd and Senator Winterton, would prohibit the governor or the chief executive officer of a political subdivision from declaring a state of emergency exclusively in response to an international organization's proclamation declaring a state of emergency. For additional coverage of HB85, see our updates of January 26th and February 2nd. HB85 passed the House 55-11 on January 23rd, but failed the Senate 12- 17 on February 5th. GrassRoots still favors a “yes” vote on HB85.

If you have any questions about these bills, GrassRoots’ position on these bills, or related matters, please contact either of us or any other member of the Board of Utah GrassRoots.

Sincerely,

Steve Stromness
Vice-Chairman, Bill Review Coordinator, Utah GrassRoots
steven.stromness@gmail.com
435-637-5248

Don Guymon
Chairman, Utah GrassRoots
donguymon@gmail.com
801-574-9461

PS Do you want to contact a legislator? Go to le.utah.gov and click on “Legislators”.

Do you want to read and follow legislation yourself? Go to le.utah.gov and select “Bills” then “2026 Bills”.

Do you have friends that would appreciate this legislative update? Please feel free to forward it to them.