These blatant, if not illegal, invasions of privacy have been going on with the unsupervised and unrestricted use of county spyware for a variety of reasons that sometimes may have nothing to do with catching criminals.

Because records don't exist, it is nearly impossible to determine whether all those uses were proper, and, worse, sheriff's department officers don't seem bothered by their ignorance about how their equipment is being used.

The loose oversight came to light during the messy and very public divorce dispute between state Rep. Katherine Bryson and Utah County Attorney Kay Bryson, who had a county-owned camera placed in his estranged wife's Salt Lake City condo.

In response to Salt Lake Tribune requests for records on the use of county surveillance devices, one officer wrote, "It is not uncommon for many to benefit without my knowledge, for I do not expect to be informed about any and all uses of this equipment. I have only expected that it will be used in a professional manner and have only found that it has in my occasional spot checks."

Spot checks are wholly inadequate to determine whether spyware has been used legally.

The county's law enforcement arm is up front and even proud of its reputation as the major resource for surveillance in the state, allowing county-owned equipment to be used by "private citizens, companies and government agencies

almost no oversight, regulation or records. The county's array of recording "bugs," cameras and even seismic ground sensors have been used in 15 counties and even in Nevada, most often by other police departments but sometimes by private individuals or companies.

Police agencies have every right to employ spying devices in appropriate and legal ways to gather evidence for criminal investigations. Loaning the equipment to other police agencies may be justifiable, although, as a Salt Lake City police detective said, law enforcement agencies must be careful how they get involved in investigations in other jurisdictions. The Utah County department clearly is not taking that kind of precaution.

Its policy of allowing just about anybody to use the devices for unknown purposes is an invitation to trouble. Keeping no record of who has use of the equipment and why is simply bad policy by an agency that spends taxpayers' money and is, or should be, accountable to them.