Download Zipped Introduced WP 9 HB0104.ZIP
[Status][Bill Documents][Fiscal Note][Bills Directory]
H.B. 104
1
2
3
4
5
6 This act modifies Code of Criminal Procedure provisions regarding disposal of property
7 received by a peace officer by amending provisions for returning property to an owner to
8 reflect the role of the agency's evidence custodian in the process.
9 This act affects sections of Utah Code Annotated 1953 as follows:
10 AMENDS:
11 77-24-2, as last amended by Chapter 10, Laws of Utah 1992
12 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah:
13 Section 1. Section 77-24-2 is amended to read:
14 77-24-2. Return of property not needed as evidence -- Procedure.
15 (1) Custodial property which is not needed as evidence shall be returned to the owner
16 in accordance with this chapter if [
17 (2) (a) When the peace officer or the officer's employing agency [
18
19 shall advise the prosecuting attorney [
20 needed and shall provide a description and details of ownership.
21 (b) When the prosecuting attorney[
22 otherwise becomes aware that the property is not needed as evidence, [
23 [
24 (c) (i) Upon proof of ownership and of lawfulness of possession satisfactory to the
25 [
26 shall release the property to the owner [
27
28 (ii) If the evidence custodian is unable to locate an owner of the property or if the
29 owner is not entitled to lawfully possess the property, the agency having custody of the
30 property shall dispose of the property in accordance with Section 77-24-4 .
31 (3) (a) When custodial property is received in evidence, [
32 clerk of the court last receiving it shall retain the property or the clerk shall [
33
34 the clerk or the officer until all direct appeals and retrials are final, at which time the property
35 shall be returned to the owner in accordance with this [
36 (b) If the prosecuting attorney considers it necessary to retain control over the
37 evidence, in anticipation of possible collateral attacks upon the judgment or [
38 [
Legislative Review Note
as of 1-16-03 4:10 PM
A limited legal review of this legislation raises no obvious constitutional or statutory concerns.