Can private investigators be prosecuted for stalking under Utah law? State v. Rashid Explained

In State v. Rashid, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether Utah’s stalking statute applies to private investigators and rejected a constitutional challenge based on statutory vagueness. The case provides important guidance on the scope of Utah’s criminal stalking law and the limits of expert witness testimony in criminal defense cases.

Background and Facts

Ahmed Rashid worked under the supervision of a private investigation agency manager who tasked him with placing a GPS tracking device on a victim’s car. Rashid followed the victim from her workplace, photographed her license plate, and installed the tracker. The victim observed Rashid following her for several miles, causing her significant distress and fear for her safety. When she later viewed security footage showing Rashid installing the tracking device, she contacted police. The State charged Rashid with stalking under Utah Code section 76-5-106.5.

Key Legal Issues

Rashid raised two primary challenges: first, he argued the stalking statute was unconstitutionally vague as applied to him because it lacked an exemption for private investigators, unlike Utah’s civil stalking injunction statute. Second, he sought to introduce expert testimony about proper private investigator training and procedures to demonstrate he lacked the requisite intent under the statute.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court rejected Rashid’s vagueness challenge, applying de novo review. The court found the stalking statute sufficiently definite to put ordinary people on notice that following, monitoring, and surveilling another person could constitute stalking. Critically, the court distinguished the criminal stalking statute in Title 76 from the civil stalking injunction provision formerly in Title 77, explaining that the Legislature’s decision to include a private investigator exemption only in the civil context demonstrated its intent not to provide such protection in criminal cases.

Regarding the expert testimony, the court affirmed the trial court’s exclusion under Utah Rules of Evidence 402 and 403. The court found the proposed testimony about proper training procedures irrelevant to whether Rashid knew or should have known his actions would cause a reasonable person to fear for their safety. Additionally, because no private investigator defense exists under the criminal statute, the level of training was immaterial to guilt or innocence.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that private investigators in Utah have no special immunity from criminal stalking charges, even when acting within their professional capacity. Defense attorneys should note that as-applied constitutional challenges require demonstrating actual confusion based on the specific statutory language and factual circumstances, not hypothetical scenarios or comparisons to other statutory schemes. The ruling also reinforces that expert testimony must be directly relevant to elements of the charged offense rather than merely providing context about professional standards or training deficiencies.