Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Administrative Law Commons

Transcription

1 University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law Tennessee Department of Safety, Petitioner, vs. One 1997 Pontiac Grand Prix VIN: 1G2WP12K5VF34129, Lien Holder: N/A $6, in U.S. Currency, Seized From: Jamari Grey, Seizure Date: January 3, 2007, Claimant: Jamari A. Grey Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Administrative Law Commons This Initial Order by the Administrative Judges of the Administrative Procedures Division, Tennessee Department of State, is a public document made available by the College of Law Library, and the Tennessee Department of State, Administrative Procedures Division. For more information about this public document, please contact administrative.procedures@tn.gov

2 BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF THE TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY IN THE MATTER OF: Tennessee Department of Safety, Petitioner DOCKET NO: J DOS NO: F9312 v. One 1997 Pontiac Grand Prix VIN: 1G2WP12K5VF34129 Lien Holder: N/A $6, in U.S. Currency Seized From: Jamari Grey Seizure Date: January 3, 2007 Claimant: Jamari A. Grey INITIAL ORDER This matter was heard in Nashville, Tennessee, on April 22, 2008, before Ann M. Johnson, Administrative Judge, assigned by the Secretary of State, Administrative Procedures Division, to sit for the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Safety. Cynthia Gross, Metropolitan Attorney, represented the State. The Claimant appeared for the hearing and was represented by Joy S. Kimbrough of the Nashville bar. MOTION TO STRIKE At the beginning of the hearing, counsel for the State made an oral Motion to Strike the claim for the currency, arguing that it was not timely filed and therefore should not be considered. This Motion was taken under advisement, and the parties were given time to submit legal arguments in support of their positions.

3 Although nothing further was received from the State, the Claimant submitted a copy of a letter from the Department of Safety, dated April 18, 2007, which stated that the Claimant had 30 days from receipt of the letter to file a claim for the seized property. Also attached was a copy of a facsimile transmission to the Department of Safety, sent on April 23, 2007, which requested return of the vehicle and the currency. To be valid, a claim must be filed within 30 days of receipt of notice that a forfeiture warrant has issued. 1 If it is not filed within this time period, the seized property shall be forfeited and disposed of as provided by law. 2 According to the documentation submitted by the Claimant, the claim was filed within the required time period and is a valid claim. For this reason, the State s Motion to Strike is denied. DECISION ON THE MERITS The subject of this hearing was the proposed forfeiture of the stated currency and vehicle for violation of the Tennessee Drug Control Act. The issue is whether the property seized was traceable to, or used to facilitate, a drug transaction. After consideration of the record and the arguments of the parties, it is determined that the property should be forfeited. This decision is based upon the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On January 3, 2007, Detective Lewis Lawrence, with the Specialized Investigations Division of the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department, was working a second job at the Pain Management Group, patrolling the grounds of the facility to enforce Metro ordinances and state laws. While sitting in his vehicle observing the parking lot, Detective 1 Tenn. Code Ann (a). 2 Tenn. Code Ann (c). 2

4 Lawrence saw two vehicles pull into the parking lot, one of which was the Pontiac driven by the Claimant. Detective Lawrence observed a white male exit one of the vehicles and get into the passenger side of the Pontiac. While in full uniform, he left his vehicle to investigate the situation. 2. Upon approaching the passenger side of the Pontiac, he observed the two men and also saw a set of scales with drugs on them, placed on the front console. 3. When the Claimant, in the driver s seat, observed the police officer approaching the car, he grabbed the scales and the drugs. 4. At that time Detective Lawrence drew his weapon, ordered both men out of the vehicle, and placed them on the ground. After securing the two men, Detective Lawrence called for additional assistance, which arrived shortly. 5. Detective Lawrence has 22 years experience as a police officer, including 20 years in drug enforcement. Based upon this experience, he stated that he believed [t]hat was a dope deal that was going down. 6. Detective Marti Roberts, with the Specialized Investigation Division, Narcotics Section, of the Metropolitan Police Department, arrived at the scene along with several other officers to provide assistance. He discovered the Claimant and the other man, Joseph Antiglione, in custody. 7. Mr. Antiglioni told Detective Roberts that he was at the scene to buy drugs. At that time he agreed to cooperate with the police in drug investigation, and he was released. However, he was arrested a few days later when he failed to follow through with his cooperation. 8. The Claimant told Detective Roberts that he had received the drugs from his brother, who was out of town. 3

5 9. From the vehicle and from the ground by the vehicle, the police recovered.07 grams of crack cocaine and 2.4 grams of cocaine powder. EXHIBIT 2. They also recovered $6, in U.S. currency from the Claimant. 10. The Claimant explained that he had received drugs from his brother, and then called Mr. Antiglioni, who was a friend, to invite him to have a little fun with the drugs. The Claimant asserted that he obtained the drugs for personal use, not for resale. 11. According to the Claimant, the large sum of money resulted from savings he had accumulated by working as a hair dresser and landscaper, as well as other odd jobs; he stated that he earns about $2,400 each month, although he had no documentary proof of income. His fiancée worked for Direct General Insurance. They saved the money since they planned to marry, and the Claimant planned to deposit it in the bank. 12. The Claimant denied any knowledge of the scales, and denied that they were on the console of the vehicle. Furthermore, the Claimant denied that there was any crack cocaine. RELEVANT LAW 1. T.C.A provides that the State has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that [t]he seized property was of a nature making its possession illegal or was used in a manner making it subject to forfeiture T.C.A (a) states that the following property, along with other items not relevant to this matter, is subject to forfeiture: (4) All conveyances, including aircraft, vehicles or vessels that are used, or are intended for use, to transport, or in any manner to facilitate the transportation, sale or receipt of [illegal controlled drugs and materials used to produce them].... (6)(A) Everything of value furnished, or intended to be furnished, in exchange for a controlled substance in violation of the Tennessee Drug Control Act of 1989, compiled in parts 3 and 4 of this chapter and title 39, chapter 17, part 4, all proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and all moneys, negotiable instruments, 4

6 and securities used, or intended to be used, to facilitate any violation of the Tennessee Drug Control Act, compiled in parts 3 and 4 of this chapter and title 39, chapter 17, part ANALYSIS and CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The State has carried its burden of proof to show that the confiscated property was more likely than not used in, or used to facilitate, illegal drug sales, for the following reasons. First, the testimony of both officers was consistent and credible. Detective Lawrence described scales containing drugs on the console of the vehicle. Based upon decades of drug enforcement experience, he believed this to be a drug transaction. Second, Mr. Antiglioni admitted that he was on the scene to purchase drugs. It is against all logic and reasoning to believe that he would have made such an incriminating statement to a police officer if it were not indeed true. Third, the Claimant possessed a large amount of money, and he offered no credible explanation for it. A person who cuts hair, does landscaping, and picks up other odd jobs does not accumulate this amount of cash, even by stringent saving. Finally, the Claimant was simply not credible, as seen in his demeanor at the hearing and the illogical statements throughout his testimony. He denied that scales were on the console (implying that Detective Lawrence fabricated this detail), he denied that crack cocaine was present, stated that he saved this amount of money by performing low-paying jobs, and he asserted that he just happened to have this currency on his person because he was on his way to the bank. It stretches credulity too far to believe any of these. All these facts indicate that the property at issue should be forfeited. Although some of the funds may be derived from a legal source, they are so intermingled with the illicit funds that any attempt to divide them would be impossible and purely speculative. The evidence, in combination with the Claimant s lack of credibility, requires the conclusion that the funds were 5

7 used in a manner making them subject to forfeiture. Furthermore, since the vehicle was used to transport drugs for resale, and as the site for the sale, it is also subject to forfeiture. Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, it is hereby ordered that the $6, in U.S. funds and the Pontiac Grand Prix vehicle shall be forfeited to the seizing agency, for disposition as provided by law. This Initial Order entered and effective this 2nd day of February, Ann M. Johnson Administrative Judge Filed in the Administrative Procedures Division, Office of the Secretary of State, this 2nd day of February, Thomas G. Stovall, Director Administrative Procedures Division 6