Weber County Attorney and Utah Attorney General candidate Dee Smith responds in this morning's Standard-Examiner to yesterday's Attorney Emily Swenson allegations that the government's "seizure documents" were improperly served, citing unspecified service of process provisions of the Utah Forfeiture Procedures Act (UFPC), with an additional quote, stating that "service may be made by any law enforcement officer...":
Turning to the apparently applicable UFPC code section, we find this express language, which is quite specific, just as Smith contends:
24-1-4. Civil Procedures.In view of the above provision, it would appear that these asset forfeiture-specific special process service requirements have been most likely satisfied, based on the information which has been provided via the public press.
...(3) (a) Within 60 days of any seizure, the prosecuting attorney shall file a complaint for forfeiture in the appropriate district court and serve a summons and notice of intent to seek forfeiture with a copy of the complaint upon all owners and interest holders known to the prosecuting attorney to have an interest in the property. Service shall be by one of the following methods:
(i) if the owner's or interest holder's name and current address are known, either by personal service by any person qualified to serve process, by a law enforcement officer, or by certified mail, return receipt requested, to that address...
As to the above-mentioned legal questions relating to the adequacy of supporting affidavits, Smith's public statement still leaves those issues publicly unaddressed.
For the sake of the private property rights of Defendant Matthew Stewart, we're sure that Stewart will be keeping his fingers crossed that Attorney Swenson has additional valid arguments still up her sleeve.
