WPC= ;# JUNU % 0(4bw@D mF] 0e 0DU:S 0J 0T+ 0D+o AQ5 0D 0^U@( eh 0hi 0r 0|C B 0@ 0 D3 0 D/e 1u B 0d& U> U* B) DC AM^dv~vjHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLH(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($zz! @ d3|x- - DaaaUeӀU (Z(2&.$ !  4XXXX   0  (#$  0  ,rAZ"Arial Regular2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  (3$ !  ݃Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5$(C<< C($$   1  2, 0Indent30 0 23  `(ZapfCalligr BTTT26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23   d("$    2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  ####'dxd2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  **' dxd "%' ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P PdP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d44447Border 1dd$5C << G  !2  "  2  3 eee FILED3X 3"US ,   !  3X CecilCrowson,Jr.   3 eee AppellateCourtClerk   X Z !#d#2  $ 4   3       Theappelleeclaimsthatthecurrencyseizedfromhishomewasgamblingproceeds.HepossessesareceiptfromaTunicacasinoinsupportofthisclaim.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ! . 2  ݛ 4   4   \RA'\ќ\RA'\3ԛ  INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE̜R675A1-j|5 `@Rߛ ` XDpX     Q ATJACKSON` XDpXӀ  Q  OCTOBER1996SESSION   ` D ` cSTATEOFTENNESSEE, ) `  c  )C.C.A.No.02C019605CR00148 Appellant, )  )ShelbyCountyV. )  )HonorableJosephB.Brown,Jr.,Judge   ) DAVIDJ.MOORE,  )(StateAppeal)  ) Appellee. )` FORTHEAPPELLANT: FORTHEAPPELLEE:CharlesW.Burson Ballin,Ballin,&Fishman,P.C.AttorneyGeneral&Reporter LeslieI.Ballin MarkA.MeslerWilliamDavidBridgers 200JeffersonAvenue,Suite1250AssistantAttorneyGeneral Memphis,TN38103CriminalJusticeDivision450JamesRobertsonParkwayNashville,TN372430493JohnW.PierottiDistrictAttorneyGeneralGlenC.BaityAsst.Dist.AttorneyGeneral201PoplarAvenue,ThirdFloor Memphis,TN38103OPINIONFILED:___________________ REVERSEDANDREMANDED;INDICTMENTSREINSTATED PAULG.SUMMERS, Judge    ` p   Q OPINION     7XXdXXd7  `  p Theappellee,DavidJ.Moore,wasindictedononecountofpossessionofacontrolledsubstancewithintenttosellandonecountofpossessionofacontrolledsubstancewithintenttodeliver.Hefiledamotiontodismissbothcountsarguingthathehadformerlybeenplacedinjeopardyfortheoffensesbyforfeiting$1,000thathadbeenseizedfromhishomeatthetimeofhisarrest.Atahearing,thetrialcourtfoundthatproceedingwithcriminalchargesaftertheappelleehadforfeitedcurrencyviolatedtheappelleesconstitutionalrightagainstdoublejeopardy.Thechargesweredismissedandthestatehasnowappealed.Thesoleissueraisedonthisappealiswhethercivilforfeitureofcurrencyallegedtobedrugproceedsconstitutesformerjeopardysoastobarsubsequentprosecutionoftheappellee.Wereverse.   FACTS    OnSeptember14,1993,theMemphisPoliceDepartmentsearchedtheappelleeshome.Theyseized3.1gramsofmethamphetamine,avarietyofdrugparaphernalia,asafe,and$6,267inU.S.currency.Theappelleewasarrestedandtransportedtopoliceheadquarters.TheappelleevoluntarilygaveastatementinwhichheclaimedhehadwontheseizedcurrencygamblingatacasinoinTunica,Mississippi. Thereafter,theCommissioneroftheTennesseeDepartmentofSafetycommencedforfeitureproceedingsagainsttheappelleesseizedpropertypursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotated5311451(a)(6)(A).Followingsettlementnegotiations,theappelleeenteredintoacompromiseagreementunderwhichtheDepartmentagreedtoreturnalloftheappelleespropertyexcept$1,000,whichtheappelleeagreedtoforfeittotheMemphisPoliceDepartment.TheDepartmentofSafetynevermadeaspecificfindingthattheforfeitedmoneywaseitherdrugproceedsorwasusedtofacilitatethecommissionofadrugoffense.Theappelleewas,thereafter,indictedonthetwocriminalcountsdiscussedabove. 4    ThestatearguesthattheU.S.SupremeCourthasrecentlyheldthatcivilforfeitureofdrugproceedsorpropertyusedtofacilitatedrugtransactionsdoesnotconstitutepunishmentforpurposesofthedoublejeopardyclauseoftheU.S.Constitution.U.S.v.Ursery,116S.Ct.2135(1996).Furthermore,thestatecontendsthatthestatuteunderwhichtheappelleescurrencywasseizedisindistinguishablefromthefederalstatuteconsideredinUrsery.Insupportofitsargument,thestatecitesStatev.Simpson,No.02C019508CC00239(Tenn.Crim.App.Aug.2,1996),arecentopinionofthisCourt.InSimpson,weheldthatcivilforfeitureundertheTennesseeDrugForfeitureActdidnotconstitutepunishmentand,therefore,didnotbarsubsequentprosecution.Statev.Simpson,No.02C019508CC00239,slipop.at78,(Tenn.Crim.App.Aug.2,1996). 4    TheappelleecontendsthattheDepartmentofSafetyneverconclusivelydeterminedthattheforfeitedcurrencywasdrugproceedsorinanywaylinkedtodrugtransactions.TheappelleearguesthatthestatecannotprovethatitwasusedtofacilitateaviolationofTennesseesdruglaws. 8   ׀Therefore,theforfeitureofthe$1000cannotbeconsidereddisgorgementofillgottengainsandmustbepunishment.Asaresult,doublejeopardyisimplicatedandfutureprosecutionbarred. Atthehearingonthemotiontodismissthecriminalcharges,thetrialjudgeapparentlyacceptedtheappelleesargument.Thetrialjudgealsofeltthatconstitutionalprohibitionsagainstdoublejeopardyprecludedthestatefromrelyingonthesamefacts,orconduct,toprovethatthemoneywasproceedsandtoprovethependingcharges.Baseduponthisreasoning,thetrialcourtdismissedthetwocountindictmentpendingagainsttheappellee. ThisCourthaspreviouslyheldthatcivilforfeituresareneitherpunishmentnorcriminalfordoublejeopardypurposes.InSimpson,theappelleescurrencywasseizedinacivilproceeding.Id.Theappelleespositioncanonlyprevailifwefindthatcivilforfeitureproceedingsconstitutepunishmentintheabsenceofaconclusivefindingthatseizedpropertywasdrugproceeds.Werejectthisposition.  TheappelleeknowinglyenteredintoacompromisesettlementwiththeDepartmentofSafety.ItwashisprerogativetochallengetheseizureandforcethestatetoprovehiscurrencywasinvolvedinaviolationoftheTennesseeDrugControlAct.Ifhehadchallengedtheseizureandthestateprovedthecurrencywasdrugproceeds,hecouldhavelosttheentire$6,267.Hisdecisiontosettlewastactical.Hecannotnowuseittobarhiscriminalprosecution. Itisillogicaltorequirethestatetoprovethenatureofseizedpropertyinacivilforfeitureproceedingwhentheoffenderwishestosettlethematter.Ifthestatewererequiredtoprovethatseizedpropertyisdrugproceedsinordertopreserveitsabilitytoprosecuteinthefuture,therewouldbenoincentiveforthestatetoenterintocompromisesettlements.Thiswouldbeawasteofthestatesresources.ThisCourtisnotinclinedtocreatesucharequirement. Weholdthatcivilforfeitureofpropertydoesnotimplicatedoublejeopardywhentheoffenderentersintoacompromisesettlement.Accordingly,thestatedoesnothavetoprovethattheforfeitedpropertyisdrugproceedsinordertopursuesubsequentcriminalprosecution.Civilforfeitureisnotpunishmentwhenanallegedoffenderforfeitspropertypursuanttoanegotiatedsettlementagreement.Therefore,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtshouldbereversedandtheindictmentsreinstated.Thecaseisremandedforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisdecision.  __________________________________  PAULG.SUMMERS,JudgeCONCUR:______________________________JOHNH.PEAY,Judge______________________________DAVIDG.HAYES,Judge  Q ̀   `  p