Bruce Thurman v. Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security, M2016-02215-COA-R3-CV

On April 27, 2015 Bruce Thurman was stopped for speeding; officers discovered his Illinois license had been revoked following a 2013 DUI. He was arrested and charged with driving on a revoked license; his truck was seized pursuant to a forfeiture warrant.
Thurman requested an administrative forfeiture hearing under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-33-201 et seq.; an administrative judge issued an Initial Order upholding the seizure and ordering forfeiture.
Thurman’s petition for reconsideration was deemed denied; the Commissioner’s designee entered a Final Order affirming forfeiture.
Thurman sought judicial review in Davidson County Chancery Court under Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-322; the chancery court affirmed the administrative decision.
On appeal, Thurman argued the vehicle forfeiture violated the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause (also coextensive with Tenn. Const. art. I, § 16); TDS argued, among other things, that the constitutional argument had been raised too late at the administrative level (an argument not pursued on appeal).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether civil forfeiture of Thurman’s truck violated the Eighth Amendment as an excessive fine	Thurman: forfeiture of his truck (valued at $8,500) was grossly disproportionate to the offense and caused undue hardship (no transport, unemployment)	TDS: forfeiture authorized by statute for vehicles used while driving on a revoked license; administrative proceedings properly denied excessive-fine claim (also argued claim was time-barred at admin level)	Court reversed: forfeiture was an excessive fine under the Stuart proportionality test; vacated forfeiture and remanded
Whether Thurman’s late-asserted constitutional claim was procedurally barred at the agency	Thurman: not applicable—claim was considered at the hearing	TDS: claim should have been pleaded earlier at the forfeiture hearing	Administrative judge addressed the claim; TDS did not appeal that procedural ruling, so court did not decide the timeliness issue

Stuart v. State Dep’t of Safety, 963 S.W.2d 28 (Tenn. 1998) (establishes proportionality test for excessive fines in civil in rem forfeitures)
Davis v. Shelby Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 278 S.W.3d 256 (Tenn. 2009) (scope of judicial review of agency factual and legal determinations)
Cumulus Broad., Inc. v. Shim, 226 S.W.3d 366 (Tenn. 2007) (standards for appellate review of administrative decisions)
State v. Taylor, 70 S.W.3d 717 (Tenn. 2002) (Tennessee Constitution’s protection against excessive fines is coextensive with the Eighth Amendment)