Follow this and additional works at:

Transcription

1 University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY vs. DOS CASE NO: G9476 G9477, ONE 1980 CORVETTE G9478, VIN NO: 1Z878A G9479, ONE 1993 DODGE, VIN NO: 2B6HB21Y1PK532948, ONE 2001 FORD TRUCK, VIN NO: 3FTNX21F51MA75226, CURRENCY: $6,545, SEIZED FROM: RONNIE BALL, DATE OF SEIZURE: 4/13/08, CLAIMANT: RONNIE BALL Follow this and additional works at: 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: ) ) DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY ) ) DOCKET NO: J VS. ) DOS CASE NO: G9476 ) G9477 ONE: 1980 CORVETTE ) G9478 VIN NO:1Z878A ) G9479 ONE: 1993 DODGE ) VIN NO: 2B6HB21Y1PK ) ONE: 2001 FORD TRUCK ) VIN NO: 3FTNX21F51MA75226 ) CURRENCY: $6,545 ) SEIZED FROM: RONNIE BALL ) DATE OF SEIZURE: 4/13/08 ) CLAIMANT: RONNIE BALL ) INITIAL ORDER This matter came to be heard on August 19, 2008, in Knoxville, Tennessee before Anthony A. Adgent, Administrative Judge, assigned by the Secretary of State and sitting for the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Safety. Ms. Lori Long, attorney for the Department of Safety, represented the State of Tennessee. The Claimant, Ronnie L. Ball, was present and was represented by Mr. Barry H. Valentine, attorney. At issue in this hearing was the proposed forfeiture of one 1993 Dodge, VIN No.: 2B6HB21Y1PK532948; one 1980 Corvette, VIN No.: 1Z878A ; one 2001 Ford F-250, VIN No.: 3FTNX21F51MA75226 and $6, in U.S. currency seized from Ronnie L. Ball on December 20, On October 3, 2008, counsel for the Claimant filed a Motion to Supplement Record (On October 13, 2008, an order was issued denying this motion).

3 After consideration of the record and the arguments and evidence presented by the parties, it is DETERMINED that subject property SHALL BE FORFIETED to the seizing agency. This determination is based upon the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Agent Benny Shelton, with the 4 th Judicial Drug Task Force, has extensive training and experience in investigating cases involving the illegal trafficking of narcotics. 2. On December 19 th, 2007, Agent Shelton followed Mr. Ball to a cinder block store owned by the Lee Corporation, which is owned by Mr. Ball. When Mr. Ball arrived at the building, Agent Shelton observed him put on gloves and handle items in the back of a 2001 Ford F-250. Agent Shelton later discovered these items to be of a type used as indoor plant growing equipment. 3. On December 20 th, 2007, Agent Shelton, along with other agents employed by the 4 th Judicial Drug Task Force, executed search warrants on three properties owned by Ronnie Ball, namely an car dealership, a cinder block store building, and Mr. Ball s residence and an adjoining storage building. 4. When the search warrant was executed on the car dealership and the cinder block store, Agent Shelton found indoor plant growing equipment.

4 5. When the search warrant was executed on Mr. Ball s residence and the adjoining structure, Agent Shelton found a 55-gallon drum containing trash bags containing large zip-lock bags of marijuana, marijuana plants, digital scales and U.S. Currency located in a safe and under a mattress in a bedroom. 6. Agent Shelton was unable to discover a legitimate source of income for Mr. Ball. 7. No explanation or was offered by the Claimant as to how the large number of individual packages of marijuana, scales and growing equipment came to be on his property and in his possession. 8. Agent Shelton seized the 2001 Ford F-250 because this vehicle was used to transport growing equipment. Agent Shelton seized the other two vehicles because he believes them to have been purchased with proceeds from the sale of narcotics. 9. Agent Shelton seized the U.S. Currency because he believes it to be money received from the sale of narcotics. 10. Mr. Ball testified that he bought the Dodge in The title shows the vehicle to have been purchased in Mr. Ball testified that he has owned the Corvette for approximately 12 years. 13. The title shows the purchase date to be in Mr. Ball brought no documentary evidence of any legitimate source of income. 15. Mr. Ball s income comes from Social Security, Veterans benefits and rental property.

5 16. Mr. Ball s testimony was not credible. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The State has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the seized property was subject to forfeiture because it was being used or was intended to be used to violate the Tennessee Drug control Act, T.C.A , et seq. See T.C.A and T.C.A (d)(2). Failure to carry the burden of proof operates as a bar to any forfeiture and the property shall be immediately returned to the Claimant. T.C.A (b)(1). 2. T.C.A states: Good subject to forfeiture---seizure---disposition--- (a) The following are subject to forfeiture: (1) All controlled substances that have been manufactured, distributed, dispensed, or acquired in violation of parts 3 and 4 of this chapter or title 39, chapter 17, part 4; (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 property described in subdivision (a)(1) or (2). (5) (A) Everything of value furnished, or intended to be furnished, in exchange for a controlled substance in violation of the Tennessee Drug

6 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, 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 4; 3. If the State presents a prima facie case for forfeiture, the burden of going forward with the evidence shifts to the Claimant to prove either that the property is not subject to forfeiture or that the Claimant has a good faith interest in the vehicle and that he or she did not know or have reason to know that the property was being used to facilitate a violation of the drug laws. T.C.A (f)(1). 4. T.C.A permits an inference from the amount of controlled substance or substances possessed by an offender, along with other relevant facts surrounding the arrest, that the controlled substance or substances were possessed with the purpose of selling or otherwise dispensing. 5. Marijuana is a controlled substance (Schedule VI drug). T.C.A T.C.A (g)(1) provides that subsection (a)(4) is violated [intent to manufacture, deliver, or sell] with respect to a Schedule VI controlled substance classified as marijuana when the amount is grams (one-half ounce) or more of any substance containing marijuana. Here, the amount of marijuana seized from Claimant was considerably more than one-half ounce. 7. The State has met its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence by presenting material and substantial evidence in this case.

7 8. Given the evidence and circumstances in this matter, it is more probable than not that Mr. Ball was using the 2001 Ford F-250 to transport narcotics and/or growing equipment, that the other two vehicles were purchased with narcotics proceeds, and that the U.S. Currency was derived from the sale of narcotics. 9. Therefore, the seized property is subject to forfeiture and ORDERED TO BE FORFIETED to the seizing agency. Entered this 13th day of October, Anthony Adgent Administrative Judge Filed in the Administrative Procedures Division, Office of the Secretary of State this 13th day of October, Thomas Stovall, Director Administrative Procedures Division