Proposed law would make secret recording of conversations illegal; Mormon church supports it

A bill before the Utah Legislature in 2018 could make it a crime to record a personal conversation without the other party’s knowledge. Composite image for illustration includes an adult with teen by KatarzynaBialasiewicz and audio waves by Lubushka, both iStock / Getty Images Plus, St. George News

ST. GEORGE – Recording a personal conversation without the other party’s knowledge could become a crime in Utah if a bill proposed by a Southern Utah legislator passes. Since being made public Monday evening, the bill has gained attention due to Mormon church lobbyists approaching legislators about supporting the bill.

The bill numbered HB 330 proposes communication interception amendments to current law. The bill is sponsored by Rep. V. Lowry Snow, R-St. George, and is co-sponsored by Sen. Todd Weiler. It would make recording a private conversation without the other party’s consent a possible misdemeanor or third-degree felony with fines attached.

Utah’s current law only requires that one party – presumably the person making the recording – knows a recording is being made at the time of the conversation.

“Call me a traditionalist and a little bit old fashioned,” Snow said, “but unless someone tells me they’re recording (me over the phone), I think its a private conversation.”

Snow initially mentioned the bill in passing during a legislative preview breakfast held by the St. George Area Chamber of Commerce in January. At the time, he said he had been approached by the Salt Lake Chamber about creating a two-party recording law.

In the business arena, companies have an interest in protecting their information, product and expansion plans, conversations in strategic meetings,” Snow said. “There is an expectation of protecting that information.”

Report continues below.

It was reported by The Salt Lake Tribune Tuesday that a representative of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had also visited Snow about the bill.

A church lobbyist visited with him “briefly” about the bill while he was still drafting it, Snow told St. George News Tuesday. Through the lobbyist, he said, the church expressed “an interest” in the legislation; Snow said he “didn’t ask what their interest was.”

Former state Sen. Steve Urquhart told the Tribune Monday that a legislator related to him said that the church is asking for a bill that would require two-party consent on recordings. The legislator in question told Urquhart he wanted to remain anonymous.

Church representatives have spoken with legislators to express support for House Bill 330, which is intended to protect the confidentiality of sensitive private conversations, including those between ecclesiastical leaders and their members,” LDS church spokesman Eric Hawkins said in a statement Tuesday. “In other states, business, legal, religious and law enforcement organizations have supported similar laws to safeguard confidential conversations for the same reasons.”

The bill could put a wrench in the plans of individuals who would otherwise record interviews with LDS church leaders.

There has been recent uproar over LDS bishops asking teens about their personal matters and sexual conduct, questions asked behind closed doors during annual interviews. Sam Young, a former LDS bishop, started a petition asking the church to end the practice. The petition has since garnered nearly 14,500 signatures.

According to The Salt Lake Tribune, John Dehlin, of the “Mormon Stories” podcast, wrote on Facebook Monday evening that the proposed law will make it impossible to record LDS church leaders during interviews in an attempt to keep them accountable.

Dehlin, who was excommunicated from the LDS church in 2015, went on to say he believes the bill is a response to Mormon Stories and Young’s efforts to get the church to end the practice of bishops and stake presidents asking minors about sex-related issues during interviews.

The bill would apply to any religious institution, Snow said, not just the LDS church. It would also go both ways, as it would be illegal for church leaders to record parishioners during the same interviews.

“On closed-door sessions, there is an expectation of privacy on both sides,” Snow said.

There are exemptions to the proposed law, however.

Public officials and employees can be recorded in relation to their public duties. Snow said he wanted that included for reasons of transparency.

Additional exemptions include recordings of communications related to emergencies or disasters; communications likely to be fraudulent, obscene or harassing in nature; communications involving threats of extortion, blackmail and physical or psychological abuse; communications establishing an ongoing pattern of harassment and abuse.

Having just been numbered and made public, Snow said the bill is in its earliest stages and will likely face revisions and amending as it passes through the Legislature.

While Snow’s proposed legislation only covers audio recordings, he said the law could extend to video recordings at some point. Utah’s current law was adopted when the ability to secretly record conversations was relatively new, he said.

Other states that employ two-party recording laws include California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. While it is legal in Nevada to record a face-to-face conservation without consent, Nevada law requires consent to record phone calls.

Resources

Read more: See all St. George News reports on Utah Legislature 2018 issues

Email: mkessler@stgnews.com

Twitter: @MoriKessler

Copyright St. George News, SaintGeorgeUtah.com LLC, 2018, all rights reserved.

 

Free News Delivery by Email

Would you like to have the day's news stories delivered right to your inbox every evening? Enter your email below to start!

12 Comments

  • Caveat_Emptor February 7, 2018 at 9:48 am

    I am skeptical of the need for this law, since there are plenty of logical exemptions, which would narrow its application. Even with the law, how often could it be enforced, especially if something goes wrong, and the recorder of the conversation needed to present it to substantiate his/her claim? Admissibility as evidence must be protected by these exemptions.
    While I always encourage folks to get commercial contract terms in writing, many small details and representations may not be reduced to writing. Recording of the conversation(s) has been an important tool to protect against potential fraud.
    Is the church worried about future lawsuits, as a result of perceived wrongdoing by their “agents”?

  • Craig February 7, 2018 at 10:01 am

    What is the reason this has come up? There must be cases.

    Also, can a church have political lobbyists? I thought it would lose tax exempt status if it did so. Or, am I outdated?

  • PatriotLiberal February 7, 2018 at 11:29 am

    “Church representatives have spoken with legislators to express support for House Bill 330, which is intended to protect the confidentiality of sensitive private conversations, including those between ecclesiastical leaders and their members,” LDS church spokesman Eric Hawkins said in a statement Tuesday.”

    PROOF that there is NO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN UTAH!

  • dons8120 February 7, 2018 at 2:19 pm

    The Mormon church just wants to hide any proof of wrong doings that happen behind closed doors. If you have nothing to hide you don’t need to worry about recordings.

  • Redbud February 7, 2018 at 5:38 pm

    I have been asked inappropriate questions during interviews with bishops and stake presidents. I will not go into details, but I can confirm it does happen. Not all bishops and stake presidents are like this however, so I am not attempting to make a blanket statement that this occurs all the time. I am also not attempting to bash the LDS church. Nevertheless, I know it does go on, and it DOES need to stop. I thought it was already illegal to record audio of a conversation in Utah without consent of the other party, or at least notifying the other party they are being recorded, so what am I missing here? What does the law currently state about this?

  • ladybugavenger February 7, 2018 at 6:04 pm

    More evidence that there is no seperation of church and state in Utah.

    • 12345 February 8, 2018 at 12:05 am

      separation of church and state does exist in Utah … what that means in Utah is how far is the closest church to the state capital

  • PlanetU February 7, 2018 at 8:34 pm

    SECRET, secret. And look who supports it- surprise.

  • 12345 February 8, 2018 at 12:02 am

    who cares why ! just pass it

  • Wolverine February 8, 2018 at 8:06 am

    You should always conduct your self as if you were being recorded. By saying this, I mean, you should never discuss nor recommend that others break laws, or attempt to influence them into doing something inappropriate. If you are not doing things that would be considered shady, or inappropriate, then you should have nothing to be concerned about. Let’s not let the church influence any more laws than they already have.

  • Caveat_Emptor February 8, 2018 at 5:00 pm

    The bill appears to be dead.
    I hope Rep. Snow’s constituents were pleased with his legislative effort……
    What was really ironic is the admission by Sen. Weiler that he had not bothered to read the bill before introducing it……
    If it wasn’t for the vocal response, from a statistically significant number of Utah voters, this stupid legislation would have passed. Congratulations to those folks who spoke up in protest to an attempt to block transparency of communication.
    In other words…… if you do not mean it, don’t say it!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.