Legal Opinion

Schroeder v. Utah Attorney General's Office

Utah Supreme Court

Decided August 25, 2015No. Case No. 20121057PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Chief Justice DURRANT,

opinion of the Court:

Introduction

«[ 1 Article I, section 14 of the Utah Constitution prohibits state actors from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures. Typically, the state may seize evidence without violating section 14 if it does so under a valid warrant or subpoena. In this case, Daniel Schroeder filed a public records request under the Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA), seeking bank records the State had seized lawfully during a criminal investigation. The district court below denied the request, holding that seetion 14 provides a broad…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Jau-Fei Chen v. StewartUtah Supreme Court · 2004
  2. State v. NielsenUtah Supreme Court · 2014
  3. Manzanares v. ByingtonUtah Supreme Court · 2012
  4. Murray v. Utah Labor CommissionUtah Supreme Court · 2013
  5. Prince v. Bear River Mutual Insurance Co.Utah Supreme Court · 2002

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. USA Power, LLC v. PacifiCorpUtah Supreme Court · 2016
  2. Richards v. CoxUtah Supreme Court · 2019
  3. Vega v. Jordan Valley MedicalUtah Supreme Court · 2019
  4. Northgate Village Development v. Orem CityUtah Supreme Court · 2019
  5. Maak v. IHC Health Services, Inc.Court of Appeals of Utah · 2016

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API