Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-33-209 (2026)
Hearing officer
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) The administrative head of the applicable agency shall contract with the secretary of state for use of administrative law judges to conduct forfeiture hearings.
- (b) The administrative law judge is empowered to subpoena witnesses and compel their attendance and to produce records, memoranda, papers and other documents at any hearing authorized by this part.
- (c) At all hearings conducted pursuant to this part, the applicable agency shall provide a stenographer or court reporter to take a stenographic record of the evidence adduced at the hearing. Upon application, the claimant shall be entitled to a copy of the stenographic record upon payment of the reasonable costs thereof to be fixed by the administrative head of the applicable agency.
- (d) All hearings conducted pursuant to this part shall be contested case hearings and shall be conducted pursuant to the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, compiled in title 4, chapter 5.
Amended by 2017 Tenn. Acts, ch. 352,s 2, eff. 7/1/2017.
Amended by 2017 Tenn. Acts, ch. 352,s 1, eff. 7/1/2017.
Acts 1994, ch. 925, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: Helms v. Tennessee Dep't of Saf., 987 S.W.2d 545 (Tenn. 1999).
Helms v. Tennessee Dep't of Saf., 987 S.W.2d 545 (Tenn. 1999). “Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 40-33-209(d), 210(a). The party dissatisfied with the Commissioner's final order may seek judicial review by filing a written notice in either the circuit or chancery court of Davidson County.”
State of Tennessee v. Charles D. Sprunger, 458 S.W.3d 482 (Tenn. 2015). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-33-209(d) (2012). Within thirty days after the filing of the written claim and any applicable bond, the agency must establish a hearing date and set the case on its docket.”
Jones v. Greene, 946 S.W.2d 817 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-33-209(d) (Supp.1996).”
Thomas Patterson v. Tennessee Dep't of Saf. & Homeland Sec. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-33-209 (b). Pertaining to the Designee from the Appeals Division, the regulations indicate “The Appeals Division is designated by the Commissioner to administer contested case matters” and to “advise the Commissioner on appellate matters.”
Abraham Asley Augustin v. Bradley Cnty. Sheriff's Off. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-33-209 (d) (2012). Within thirty days after the filing of the written claim and any applicable bond, the agency must establish a hearing date and set the case on its docket.”
Larry Brown v. Tennessee Dep't of Saf. & Homeland & Sec. (2022). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-33-209 (d) (2012). Within thirty days after the filing of the written claim and any applicable bond, the agency must establish a hearing date and set the case on its docket.”
Gordon Groves v. City of Knoxville (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 40-33-209 (d) (2012). - 12 - Augustin v.”
Helms v. Dept. of Saf. (Tenn. 1999). “Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-33-209 (d), 210(a).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-33-209(d) — 4 cases
Helms v. Tennessee Dep't of Saf., 987 S.W.2d 545 (Tenn. 1999). “Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 40-33-209(d), 210(a). The party dissatisfied with the Commissioner's final order may seek judicial review by filing a written notice in either the circuit or chancery court of Davidson County.”
State of Tennessee v. Charles D. Sprunger, 458 S.W.3d 482 (Tenn. 2015). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-33-209(d) (2012). Within thirty days after the filing of the written claim and any applicable bond, the agency must establish a hearing date and set the case on its docket.”
Jones v. Greene, 946 S.W.2d 817 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-33-209(d) (Supp.1996).”
Thomas Patterson v. Tennessee Dep't of Saf. & Homeland Sec. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-33-209 (b). Pertaining to the Designee from the Appeals Division, the regulations indicate “The Appeals Division is designated by the Commissioner to administer contested case matters” and to “advise the Commissioner on appellate matters.”
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.