Interesting twist in connection with the Matthew Stewart Shootup matter, with this morning's Standard-Examiner story, reporting that "[p]apers have been filed to halt, if only temporarily, the seizure of police shooting suspect Matthew David Stewart’s home":
Here's the gist, as reported by the S-E's Tim Gurrister:
Ogden lawyer Emily Swenson filed the motion to quash the forfeiture Tuesday in 2nd District Court after consulting with Randy Richards, one of Stewart’s three defense lawyers. She declined comment on any financial arrangement for her involvement in the case...
Swenson is alleging technical violations in the documentation of the forfeiture, saying it lacks a required affidavit and was not served properly. The law’s requirements as to who served the document on Stewart is precise, according to the motion.We'll confess that we're a mite mystified by the grounds for the motion, which appears to claim that service of the "the seizure documents," by an Ogden patrol officer fails to conform to the law, inasmuch as the governing Utah statute for service of court process (Utah Code Section 78B-8-302 Process servers ) provides this:
That includes an attorney, a county sheriff’s deputy or a designated constable, none of which were employed in serving Stewart, reads the motion, which claims an Ogden city patrol officer served the documents.
(1) Complaints, summonses, and subpoenas may be served by any person 18 years of age or older at the time of service, and who is not a party to the action or a party's attorney. (2) The following persons may serve all process issued by the courts of this state: ... (a) a peace officer employed by any political subdivision of the state acting within the scope and jurisdiction of his employment.Perhaps the gravamen of the claimed legal defect is that the patrol officer in the instant case lacks the necessary training to properly serve papers within the normal scope of his duties, and/or that unreported defects exist within the supporting affidavit[s] themselves. If there's anyone close to this case who'd like to wade in via the comments section below, we'd love to learn about the "merits" of Ms. Swenson's motion. Failing that, we'll have to wait until the motion is argued in court, we guess.
In the time being, however, here's an extra cranky "something" for our readers to chew on, regarding the "true" motivations of government officials who prosecute these "drug war" asset forfeiture cases:
That's it for now, O Gentle Ones.
And what about it, Weber County Forum readers? Is it just your blogmeister, or are there others who believe that these pre-convictiom "drug war" asset seizures are an egregious and unacceptable encroachment upon American individual liberty?
Who'll be the first to toss in their own 2¢?
