Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-33-210 (2026)

Hearing

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In order to forfeit any property or any person's interest in the property pursuant to §§ 39-14-307, 47-25-1105, 53-11-451, 55-10-414, 55-16-104, 55-50-504(g), 57-3-411, 57-5-409, 57-9-201, 67-4-1020 or 70-6-202, the state shall have the burden to prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
- (1) The seized property was of a nature making its possession illegal or was used in a manner making it subject to forfeiture under the sections set out in this subsection (a); and
- (2) The owner or co-owner of the property knew that the property was of a nature making its possession illegal or was being used in a manner making it subject to forfeiture, or, in the case of a secured party, that the standards set out in subsection (f) are met.

(b) Failure to carry the burden of proof shall operate as a bar to any forfeiture and the property shall be immediately returned to the claimant.

(c)
- (1) The interest of a co-owner or co-owners who were not in possession of the property at the time it was seized may be forfeited if the co-owners:
  - (A) Were co-conspirators to the activity making the property subject to forfeiture;
  - (B) Knew that the property was of a nature making its possession illegal; or
  - (C) Knew that it was being used in a manner making it subject to forfeiture and consented to the use.
- (2) If the state meets its burden of proof as to one (1) co-owner of the seized property but fails to do so as to one (1) or more other co-owners, the property shall be forfeited subject to the interest of the innocent co-owners.

(d) If it is determined that the state has carried the burden of proof with regard to all parties claiming an interest in the property, and the ruling of the administrative law judge is adverse to the claimant or claimants, the property shall be sold or disposed of as provided in § 40-33-211.

(e) If the interest of the owner or co-owner of seized property is forfeited pursuant to this section but the interest of the secured party is not, the administrative law judge may, at the request of the secured party, return the seized property for disposition in accordance with the security agreement or other contract. If the property is not returned to the secured party, the forfeiture shall be subject to the secured party's interest.

(f) A secured party's interest may be forfeited if, from evidence presented at the hearing, the administrative law judge finds that:
- (1) The secured party is a co-conspirator to the activity making the property subject to forfeiture; or
- (2) The secured party, at the time the interest attached, had actual knowledge of the intended illegal use of the property. A secured party who acquired an interest in the ordinary course of business shall be presumed to have no actual knowledge of an intended illegal use and shall have no duty to inquire as to the record or reputation of a borrower.

(g) The expenses of storage, transportation and other similar costs shall be adjudged as part of the cost of the proceeding in such manner as the administrative law judge shall determine.

(h) The administrative law judge's ruling shall be considered a final order of the applicable agency for purposes of appealing of the order.

Amended by 2017 Tenn. Acts, ch. 352,Secs.s4, s5 eff. 7/1/2017.

Amended by 2017 Tenn. Acts, ch. 352,s 3, eff. 7/1/2017.

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

Amended by 2013 Tenn. Acts, ch. 154,s 34, eff. 7/1/2013.

Acts 1994, ch. 925, § 1; 1996, ch. 910, § 4; 1996, ch. 959, § 3.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2003–2022 · leading case: McEwen v. Tennessee Dep't of Saf., 173 S.W.3d 815 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

McEwen v. Tennessee Dep't of Saf., 173 S.W.3d 815 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-33-210 (b)(l). To carry its burden by a preponderance of the evidence, the State must establish that each item of disputed property, more likely than not, 19 was exchanged or intended to be exchanged in an illegal drug transaction or that each item was…”

State of Tennessee v. Charles D. Sprunger, 458 S.W.3d 482 (Tenn. 2015). · cites it 4× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-33-210 (a) (2012); see also Helms, 987 S.”

Watson v. Tennessee Dep't of Saf., 361 S.W.3d 549 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). “Premature Sale of Property, Accounting of Proceeds It is undisputed that Watson’s personal property was sold on November 6, 2004, prior to the forfeiture hearing mandated by Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-33-210. The State concedes that the premature sale of Watson’s property was…”

Abraham Asley Augustin v. Bradley Cnty. Sheriff's Off. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 4× “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-33-207 (a) (2012). At the contested administrative hearing, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the property at issue is subject to forfeiture.”

Troy Nicholas v. Tennessee Dep't of Saf. & Homeland Sec. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “The vehicle or other property described on the Notice of Seizure will be forfeited and subject to public sale or other lawful disposition after thirty (30) days from receipt of this notice unless any claimant to the seized goods shall file with the Commissioner of Safety, a…”

Larry Brown v. Tennessee Dep't of Saf. & Homeland & Sec. (2022). · cites it 2× “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-33-207 (a) (2012). At the contested administrative hearing, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the property at issue is subject to forfeiture.”

State of Tennessee v. Charles D. Sprunger (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “Sufficiency of the Evidence Tennessee Code Annotated Section 40-33-210(a) provides: [T]he state shall have the burden to prove by a preponderance of -10- evidence that: (1) The seized property was of a nature making its possession illegal or was used in a manner making it…”

Anthony C. Brown v. Tennessee Dep't of Saf. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-33-210 . A forfeiture order may issue if there is sufficient evidence to establish that the property was used in a manner that would make it subject to forfeiture.”

Teresa McEwen v. Dept. of Saf. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “If the State failed to make out a prima facie case, the forfeiture of this 17 Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-33-210 (a) (2003); Tenn.”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-33-210(a) — 2 cases

McEwen v. Tennessee Dep't of Saf., 173 S.W.3d 815 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-33-210 (b)(l). To carry its burden by a preponderance of the evidence, the State must establish that each item of disputed property, more likely than not, 19 was exchanged or intended to be exchanged in an illegal drug transaction or that each item was…”

State of Tennessee v. Charles D. Sprunger (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013). “Sufficiency of the Evidence Tennessee Code Annotated Section 40-33-210(a) provides: [T]he state shall have the burden to prove by a preponderance of -10- evidence that: (1) The seized property was of a nature making its possession illegal or was used in a manner making it…”

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.