Police working on task forces with federal officers face conflicting state and federal search and seizure rules, one reason Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said he is proposing a constitutional change related to the Fourth Amendment.

That change is represented in a bill proposal by Senate President John Valentine, R-Orem.

The Utah Constitution description of individuals' rights against unreasonable searches and seizures is almost identical to the wording of the Fourth Amendment, but federal and state judicial interpretation over the reason evidence can be excluded from trial differ. Exclusionary rules, also different at the state and federal levels, allow defense attorneys to argue to block evidence from being used in court if there is proof the evidence was improperly collected.

Shurtleff's proposal, discussed by the Constitutional Revision Commission Thursday, would add language to the state constitution saying an individual's rights related to search and seizure would follow the interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court and that evidence gathered in violation of an individual's rights shall only be excluded in a state proceeding if it would be excluded based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

"We need to get back to where police officers know exactly what the rules are when it comes to search and seizure law," said Paul Cassell, a U.S. District Court judge in Utah until earlier this month when he stepped down to take a position as a University of Utah law professor. Cassell said he supports Shurtleff's proposal.

Cassell also proposed a narrower proposal saying "no relevant evidence shall be excluded in any criminal or civil proceeding, trial or hearing on the ground that the evidence was obtained in violation of the Utah Constitution."

If a law enforcement officer improperly gathered evidence, the evidence would still be allowed at prosecution but the officer would be punished, Cassell explained.

Former Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Michael Zimmerman, now in private law practice, told the CRC that if the intent is to remove the exclusionary rule it would be better to remove search and seizure language from the state constitution altogether than to add language. "That will do what the proposal attempts to do, but the proposal is not well written," he said. "Be honest about it. You're turning all of these issues over to the federal courts."

Zimmerman suggested the CRC seek out likely opponents to the change and engage in more extended discussion before making a recommendation about a constitutional change.

CRC chairman Kevin J. Worthen said at the conclusion of Thursday's discussion the group was not in a position to make a decision about the proposal.

The CRC is not scheduled to meet again before the end of the year. If Valentine files a bill for the 2008 legislative session, it may be debated without criticism or endorsement from the CRC.

---

E-mail: sfidel@desnews.com