Utah H.B. 366 (Criminal Justice Amendments 2024, Section 9–15)

• Authority: Utah
• Parent authority: State governments
• Jurisdiction: United States
• Collections: U.S. state and local documents
• Most recent activity: Enacted
• Most recent activity date: 2024-01-24

Risk subdomain coverage

Minimal coverage — Brief mention but no specific mitigations, recommendations or governance measures relating to the risk subdomain are described.

• Unfair discrimination and misrepresentation
• Overreliance and unsafe use
• Lack of transparency or interpretability

All other risk subdomains had no coverage in this document.

Risk Coverage Summary

The document has minimal coverage of approximately 2-3 subdomains, with focus on overreliance and unsafe use (5.1), lack of transparency or interpretability (7.4), and potentially unfair discrimination (1.1). Coverage is concentrated in human-computer interaction and AI system safety domains, specifically addressing risks of over-reliance on algorithmic decision-making in criminal justice contexts.

Sector coverage

Good coverage — Comprehensive governance measures or mitigations with clear procedures relating to the sector are explicitly described.

• Public Administration (excl. National Security)

All other sectors had no coverage in this document.

Sectors Summary

This legislation exclusively governs the Public Administration sector, specifically criminal justice system operations including courts, corrections, probation, parole, and pretrial services. It does not regulate AI use in other economic sectors.

Legislative Status

Hard Law

Legislative Status Summary

This is a binding state statute (Utah H.B. 366) that amends multiple sections of Utah criminal code with mandatory prohibitions on sole reliance on algorithms in criminal justice decisions. The document uses mandatory language throughout ('may not', 'shall') and creates legally enforceable obligations on courts and criminal justice entities.

Actors

Proposer

• Entity Types: AI_Governance_Actor
• Entities: Utah State Legislature
• Summary: This is a state legislative bill (H.B. 366) that amends Utah criminal code. The Utah State Legislature is the proposing body that drafted and enacted this legislation.

Target

• Entity Types: AI_Governance_Actor, AI_Deployer
• Entities: Utah courts; magistrates; judges; prosecuting attorneys; Board of Pardons and Parole; Department of Corrections; law enforcement agencies; local government agencies; private organizations providing probation services
• Summary: The legislation applies to courts, magistrates, judges, and criminal justice entities that use algorithms or risk assessment tools in making decisions about diversion, sentencing, probation, pretrial release, and parole. These entities are both governance actors (courts, parole boards) and deployers of AI systems (risk assessment tools).

Enforcer

• Entity Types: AI_Governance_Actor
• Entities: Utah appellate courts; Utah Supreme Court; Utah judicial system
• Summary: As binding state law, enforcement occurs through the judicial system itself. Appellate courts would review decisions for compliance with these statutory requirements. The document does not specify a separate enforcement agency, but judicial review mechanisms provide enforcement.

Monitor

• Entity Types: AI_Governance_Actor
• Entities: Administrative Office of the Courts; Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice
• Summary: The Administrative Office of the Courts is required to collect and report data on criminal cases, including information about pretrial risk assessments, to the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice, which serves as a monitoring body for criminal justice data.

AI Lifecycle Stages

Lifecycle stages covered by the documents, as defined in the OECD Framework for the Classification of AI Systems

• Deploy
• Operate and Monitor

AI Lifecycle Summary

The document does not focus on AI development lifecycle stages but rather on the deployment and operational use of algorithms and risk assessment tools in criminal justice decision-making. It primarily addresses the 'Deploy' and 'Operate and Monitor' stages by regulating how these tools are used in practice and requiring data collection on their use.

Technical Scope

Terms relating to technical scope that are mentioned or implicitly referenced in the document

• Predictive AI
• Task-specific AI

Technical Scope Summary

The document explicitly mentions 'algorithms' and 'risk assessment tools' but does not define these terms or distinguish between different types of AI systems. It does not reference AI models, AI systems, frontier AI, general purpose AI, foundation models, generative AI, predictive AI, open-weight models, or compute thresholds. The focus is on algorithmic decision-making tools used in criminal justice contexts without technical specification.