Watson v. Tennessee Department of Safety
2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 535
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Watson, unemployed, resided in Madisonville, Tennessee in 2000 during a state drug investigation.
- An informant earned nine controlled methamphetamine purchases from Watson’s residence, prompting a January 25, 2001 search warrant and seizure of drugs and personal property.
- Approximately 240 items, including currency, tools, weapons, and sixteen vehicles valued at about $400,000, were seized and stored at multiple locations.
- Forfeiture warrants were issued after February 16, 2001, with extension orders granted on February 2, 2001 permitting up to ten more days to obtain warrants.
- The state sold the seized property on November 6, 2004 before a forfeiture hearing, in violation of statute, with no itemized accounting of proceeds at that time.
- Watson pled guilty to federal drug charges on December 20, 2001; an initial forfeiture hearing followed in November 2004, and the trial court affirmed the forfeiture order in 2010–2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of premature sale affecting jurisdiction | Watson argues premature sale voids forfeiture proceedings. | State concedes sale violated statute but did not divest jurisdiction. | Premature sale did not divest jurisdiction; proceedings could continue. |
| Timeliness and authority of forfeiture warrants | Warrants were not obtained within five days, violating § 40-33-204(b). | Extension under § 40-33-204(c)(2) justified due diligence and extraordinary circumstances. | Extensions permitted; extension orders may justify delays within statutory framework. |
| Connection of seized property to drug activity | State failed to show each item linked to drug trafficking. | State need not trace every item to specific drug sales; circumstantial evidence suffices. | Evidence supports a nexus between property and drug activity; standard applied is preponderance. |
| Effect of state criminal charges dismissal on forfeiture | Dismissal of state charges undermines basis for forfeiture. | Department retains authority to determine forfeiture despite dismissal; federal plea supports forfeiture. | Dismissal does not defeat Department’s forfeiture authority; connected to drug activity remains valid. |
| Applicability of 40-17-118 and Cruse | Cruse and §40-17-118 govern return of unlawfully seized or stolen property. | Property seized as proceeds/commodities of drug activity, not stolen property; Cruse not applicable. | Cruse and §40-17-118 do not apply; forfeiture under 53-11-451 governs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lettner v. Plummer, 559 S.W.2d 785 (Tenn. 1977) (forfeiture evidence need not trace every item to specific drug sales; circumstantial evidence allowed)
- McEwen v. Tenn. Dep't of Safety, 173 S.W.3d 815 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2005) (three-stage forfeiture review; preponderance standard on appeal)
- Redd v. Tenn. Dep't of Safety, 895 S.W.2d 332 (Tenn. 1995) (strict construction of forfeiture statutes; governmental power to forfeiture is not to be abused)
- Cruse v. City of Columbia, 922 S.W.2d 492 (Tenn. 1996) (inapplicability of 40-17-118 when property is not stolen; doctrine distinguished)
- Fuqua v. Armour, 543 S.W.2d 64 (Tenn. 1976) (forfeiture context; governing principles for property subjected to forfeiture)