Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-33-201 (2026)

Application

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

All personal property, including conveyances, subject to forfeiture under § 39-14-307, § 47-25-1105, § 53-11-451, § 55-16-104, § 55-50-504(g), § 55-10-414, § 57-3-411, § 57-5-409, § 57-9-201, § 67-4-1020, or § 70-6-202, shall be seized and forfeited in accordance with the procedure set out in this part.

Amended by 2015 Tenn. Acts, ch. 344,s 6, eff. 7/1/2015.

Amended by 2013 Tenn. Acts, ch. 154,s 33, eff. 7/1/2013.

Acts 1994, ch. 925, § 1; 1996, ch. 910, § 3; 1996, ch. 959, § 2.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1995–2022 · leading case: State of Tennessee v. Charles D. Sprunger, 458 S.W.3d 482 (Tenn. 2015).
State of Tennessee v. Charles D. Sprunger, 458 S.W.3d 482 (Tenn. 2015). · cites it 10× “1996) (outlining evolution of Tennessee’s civil drug forfeiture procedures, culminating in adoption of Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-33-201, et seq.). Although it has some punitive overtones, civil forfeiture serves a number of non-punitive purposes.”
Helms v. Tennessee Dep't of Saf., 987 S.W.2d 545 (Tenn. 1999). · cites it 14× “1992), *547 and Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 40-33-201 to -214 (1997).”
Jones v. Greene, 946 S.W.2d 817 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 3× “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-33-201 (Supp.1996) (amendments effective January 1,1997).”
Watson v. Tennessee Dep't of Saf., 361 S.W.3d 549 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). “Issues on Appeal and Standaed of Review On appeal, Watson challenges the trial court’s holding that the record supports the conclusions that Watson’s property was forfeited in accordance with the procedural requirements set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-33-201, that the…”
Weaver v. City of Knoxville (In re Thomas), 179 B.R. 523 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1995). “The Tennessee Legislature enacted sections 40-33-201 to -214 of the Tennessee Code in 1994, setting forth procedures for the seizure and forfeiture of personal property, effective October 1, 1994.”
Abraham Asley Augustin v. Bradley Cnty. Sheriff's Off. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 18× “With regard to jurisdiction, Appellee contended that Appellant was required to exhaust his administrative remedies with the Department of Safety pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-33-201 et seq., and that, in any event, any petition for judicial 3 The trial court…”
Charles A. Harmon v. James J.J. Jones (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 13× “They contended Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-33-201, a part entitled “Forfeiture Procedures Generally,” specifically provides that property subject to forfeiture under Tennessee Code Annotated section 53-11-451 “shall be seized and forfeited in accordance with the…”
State of Tennessee v. Carolyn Tillilie (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 5× “7 Additionally, the legislature has enacted legislation explicitly incorporating title 40, chapter 33, part 2 as a basis for the forfeiture of property following the conviction of other crimes not already listed in section 40-33-201.”
Helms v. Dept. of Saf. (Tenn. 1999). · cites it 7× “1992), and Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-33-201 to -214 (1997).”
Dietrich Hill v. City of Memphis (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-33-201 et seq. is not, however, the statutory 12 framework used by the City of Memphis to pursue forfeiture proceedings in this case.”
Joseph Skernivitz v. State of Tennessee Dep't of Saf. & Homeland Sec. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-33-201 states: “All personal property, including 3 conveyances, subject to forfeiture under .”
Bruce Thurman v. Tennessee Dep't of Saf. & Homeland Sec. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “Thurman timely filed a petition for a hearing on the forfeiture with the Tennessee Department of Safety (“TDS”), in accordance with the procedures at Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-33-201, et seq. A hearing was held before an administrative judge, who issued an Initial…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.