Can Utah's stalking statute survive constitutional challenges? Salt Lake City v. Lopez Explained

In Salt Lake City v. Lopez, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed fundamental constitutional challenges to Utah’s stalking statute, providing important guidance on the balance between protecting victims and preserving constitutional rights.

Background and Facts

Lopez, a 25-year-old man, pursued a romantic relationship with G.M.M., who was 13 when they first met. Despite clear rejections from G.M.M. and her parents, warnings from her attorney, and a no-contact order, Lopez continued his unwanted contact. His behavior escalated to following her car, appearing at her workplace with threatening demands, attending her graduation, and making intimidating gestures. G.M.M. testified she lived in fear and avoided social activities because of Lopez’s harassment.

Key Legal Issues

Lopez mounted a comprehensive constitutional attack on Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-106.5, claiming the stalking statute was: (1) facially overbroad because it infringed on First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to association and movement; (2) overbroad as applied to his specific conduct; and (3) unconstitutionally vague for failing to define “emotional distress.”

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed Lopez’s conviction, applying the correctness standard to constitutional challenges. On overbreadth, the court emphasized that a statute is only unconstitutionally overbroad if it renders unlawful a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct. The stalking statute passed this test because it narrowly targets threatening behavior through specific requirements: repeated conduct (two or more occasions), intentional direction at a specific person, and knowledge that the conduct causes distress.

Regarding vagueness, the court rejected Lopez’s challenge by noting that “emotional distress” is well-established in Utah tort law as conduct that is “outrageous and intolerable” and “offends generally accepted standards of decency and morality.” The statute’s specific intent requirement further eliminated any constitutional vagueness concerns.

Practice Implications

This decision demonstrates that criminal statutes can survive overbreadth challenges when they include adequate limiting principles and target conduct rather than pure speech. Practitioners should note that constitutional challenges must show substantial—not merely theoretical—infringement on protected rights. The incorporation of established tort law definitions can cure apparent statutory vagueness, and specific intent requirements significantly strengthen a statute’s constitutional foundation.