ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw Ý4çû Æ ÆÐ Æ– Æ\ Æ" 0Jè 0T2 0^† 0hä 0rL 0|¾ 0†: 0À 1uPU,Å 0dñ A©U 0@þ D+> 0KiU,´U>àB)DCG BŠ AM§ AOô D3CU*v0 v~ÐvÓN AO! 0Dp D/´ Bã˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡vÓ€©U!3|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ $#›&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò'ÈÈÈÈdxd( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd d $-A<< Cÿÿ $)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ****'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial &Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌò òSeptember€9,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€.ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò ‚ƒCþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€&&X„d&ÓÑ#€&&Xd#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓòòÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€¶}XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÙ€ ÙßL€,/);+'h|` Å `€€LßIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌJULY€1996€SESSIONóóÌÓ  ÓÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à€€€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€)Ìà àà àAppelleeà àà àà à€€€€€)à àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9601„CC„0026Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€)à àSevier€CriminalÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€)à àÌCHARLES€DON€VANCE€à àà àà à€€€€€)à àHonorable€Rex€Henry€OgleÌà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à à€€€€€)à àÌà àà àAppellantà àà àà à€€€€€)à à(Question€of€Law€„€Double€Jeopardy)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€)ÌÌÓÓÌÌÌÓÓòòFor€Appellant:à àà àà àà àà àFor€Appellee:ÌÌóóEdward€C.€Millerà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌPublic€Defenderà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌFourth€Judicial€CircuitÌP.O.€Box€416à àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€David€BridgesÌDandridge,€Tennessee€€37725à àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€€€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAl€Schmutzer,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€E.€Atchley,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSevierville,€Tennessee€€€37862ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED_______________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌWILLIAM€M.€DENDER,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌà àòòÓ  ÓOPINIONóóÌÓ  ÓÌÓÓÌà àThe€appellant€pled€guilty€to€three€counts€of€the€sale€of€cocaine€on€September€25,€1995,€andÏreceived€a€sentence€of€eight€years;€however,€appellant€specifically€reserved€the€right€to€appeal€aÏcertified€question€of€law€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure,€Rule€37(b)(2)(iv).€ÏThis€is€his€appeal€as€of€right€on€a€certified€question€of€law€that€is€dispositive€of€the€case.ÌÌà àAppellant€states€his€issue€as€follows:€€"Whether€the€appellant's€constitutional€protectionÏagainst€being€subject€to€double€jeopardy€would€prohibit€his€prosecution€under€the€criminal€statutesÏin€this€cause€due€to€the€fact€that€the€appellant€had€previously€had€his€automobile€seized€andÏforfeited€pursuant€to€Tenn€Code€Ann.€ðð€53„11„451?"€ÌÌà àWe€answer€that€question€in€the€negative,€and€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌòòÓ  ÓFACTSóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àOn€May€17,€1995,€the€Sevier€County€Grand€Jury€returned€three€presentments€against€theÍappellant€for€the€sale€and€delivery€of€cocaine.€€On€May€18,€1995,€appellant€was€arrested,€and€hisÏ1983€Honda€automobile€was€seized.€€Appellant€did€not€file€a€notice€contesting€the€forfeiture€of€hisÏautomobile,€and€the€automobile€was€ordered€forfeited€to€the€seizing€agency€by€the€CommissionerÏof€the€Department€of€Safety€on€August€21,€1995.€€On€September€25,€1995,€appellant€argued€hisÏMotion€to€Dismiss€based€upon€the€question€of€double€jeopardy,€and€the€trial€court€overruled€thatÏmotion,€upon€the€basis€that€appellant€was€not€a€party€to€the€forfeiture€proceeding€and€jeopardy€as€toÏappellant€could€not€attach€to€that€proceeding.€€This€holding€was€based€upon€òòUnited€States€v.ÏTorressóó,€28€F.3d€1463€(7th€Cir.€1994).€€Following€the€ruling€of€the€trial€court€on€the€Motion€toÏDismiss,€appellant€pled€guilty€to€three€counts€of€the€sale€of€cocaine€and€received€a€sentence€of€eightÏyears;€and€appellant€specifically€reserved€the€right€to€appeal€the€issue€of€double€jeopardy.€€ÌÌòòÓ  ÓANALYSIS€AND€HOLDINGóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àWe€feel€that€it€is€not€necessary€to€decide€if€jeopardy€attached€to€the€forfeiture€hearing€on€theÏautomobile,€because€the€bench€and€bar€will€be€best€served€by€a€more€complete€analysis€of€theÏforfeiture€under€T.C.A.€ðð€53„11„451€and€T.C.A.€ðð€53„11„201„204.€€ÌÌà àAs€far€the€U.S.€Constitution€and€the€federal€courts€are€concerned,€the€United€StatesÏSupreme€Court€has€clearly€decided€the€case€opposite€to€the€position€of€the€appellant.€€In€òòUnitedÏStates,€Petitioner€v.€Guy€Jerome€Urseryóó,€No.€95„345,€decided€June€24,€1996,€the€Court€discussedÏthe€cases€of€òòVarious€Items€of€Personal€Property€v.€United€Statesóó,€282€U.S.€577€(1931),€òòOne€LotÍEmerald€Cut€Stones€v€.€United€Statesóó,€409€U.S.€232€(1972),€and€òòUnited€States€v.€One€AssortmentÏof€89€Firearmsóó,€465€U.S.€354€(1984);€and€the€Court€said:ÌÓÓà0 àOur€cases€reviewing€civil€forfeitures€under€the€Double€Jeopardy€Clause€adhere€to€aÏremarkably€consistent€theme.€€Though€the€two„part€analytical€construct€employed€in€òò89ÏFirearmsóó€was€more€refined,€perhaps,€than€that€we€had€used€over€50€years€earlier€in€òòVariousÏItemsóó,€the€conclusion€was€the€same€in€each€case:€in€rem€civil€forfeiture€is€a€remedial€civilÏsanction,€distinct€from€potentially€punitive€in€personam€civil€penalties€such€as€fines,€andÏdoes€not€constitute€a€punishment€under€the€Double€Jeopardy€Clause.€€See€òòGore€v.€UnitedÏStatesóó,€357€U.S.€386,€392€(1958)€(„In€applying€a€provision€like€that€of€double€jeopardy,Ïwhich€is€rooted€in€history€and€is€not€an€evolving€concept€.€.€.€a€long€course€of€adjudicationÏin€this€Court€carries€impressive€authority„).€€€€€ÌÌÓÓÌà àIn€òòUrseryóó,€òòsupraóó,€the€Court€further€discussed€the€cases€of€òòUnited€States€v.€Halperóó,€490ÏU.S.€435€(1989),€òòMontana€Dept.€Of€Revenue€v.€Kurth€Ranchóó,€511€U.S.€_____,€and€òòAustin€v.ÏUnited€Statesóó,€509€U.S.€602€(1993),€as€follows:ÌÓÓà0 àIn€sum,€nothing€in€òòHalperóó,€òòKurth€Ranchóó,€or€òòAustinóó,€purported€to€replace€our€traditionalÏunderstanding€that€civil€forfeiture€does€not€constitute€punishment€for€the€purpose€of€theÏDouble€Jeopardy€Clause.ÌÌà à.€.€.ÌÌà0 àòòHalperóó€dealt€with€in€personam€civil€penalties€under€the€Double€Jeopardy€Clause;€òòKurthÏRanchóó€with€a€tax€proceeding€under€the€Double€Jeopardy€Clause;€and€òòAustinóó€with€civilÏforfeitures€under€the€Excessive€Fines€Clause.€€None€of€those€cases€dealt€with€the€subject€ofÏthis€case:€in€rem€civil€forfeitures€for€purposes€of€the€Double€Jeopardy€Clause.ÌÌà à.€.€.ÌÌà0 àBecause€it€provides€a€useful€analytical€tool,€we€conduct€our€inquiry€within€the€frameworkÏof€the€two„part€test€used€in€òò89€Fireworksóó.€€First,€we€ask€whether€Congress€intendedÏproceedings€under€21€U.S.C.€881,€and€18€U.S.C.€981,€to€be€criminal€or€civil.€€Second,Ïwe€turn€to€consider€whether€the€proceedings€are€so€punitive€in€fact€as€to€„persuade€us€thatÏthe€forfeiture€proceeding€[s]€may€not€legitimately€be€viewed€as€civil€in€nature,„€despiteÏCongressðð€intent.€€òò89€Firearmsóó,€465€U.S.,€at€366.ÌÌà à.€.€.€ÌÌà0 àWe€hold€that€these€in€rem€civil€forfeitures€are€neither€„punishment„€nor€criminal€forÏpurposes€of€the€Double€Jeopardy€Clause.ÌÌÓÓÌà àNo€substantial€difference€in€the€U.S.€Constitution€and€the€Tennessee€Constitution€doubleÏjeopardy€clauses€has€been€pointed€out€to€us.€€We€are€of€the€opinion€that€our€state€constitutionÏprovides€no€greater€protection€than€that€afforded€by€the€United€States€Constitution.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€ofÏTennessee€v.€Grapel€Simpsonóó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9508„CC„00239,€at€Jackson,€decided€AugustÏ2,€1996.ÌÌà àIn€deciding€this€case,€we€feel€it€is€proper€for€us€to€use€the€analysis€used€in€òòUrseryóó,€òòsupraóó.€ÏFirst,€we€will€seek€to€determine€whether€the€Tennessee€Legislature€intended€forfeiture€proceedingsÏunder€T.C.A.€ðð€53„11„201„204€and€T.C.A.€ðð€53„11„451€to€be€criminal€or€civil.€€Second,€we€willÏconsider€whether€the€proceedings€are€so€punitive€in€fact€as€to€ð ð„persuade€us€that€the€forfeitureÏproceedings€may€not€legitimately€be€viewed€as€civil€in€nature„ðð€despite€the€intent€of€the€legislature.€€ÌÌà àIn€our€inquiry€concerning€the€intent€of€the€legislature,€we€conclude€that€the€TennesseeÏLegislature€designed€forfeiture€under€T.C.A.€ðð€53„11„201„204€and€T.C.A.€ðð€53„11„451€as€aÏremedial€civil€sanction.€€This€conclusion€was€based€upon€several€findings.€€T.C.A.€ðð€53„11„403Ïstates:€ð ðAny€penalty€imposed€for€violation€of€parts€3€and€4€of€this€chapter€or€title€39,€chapter€6,€partÏ4€[repealed]€is€in€addition€to,€and€not€in€lieu€of,€any€civil€or€administrative€penalty€or€sanctionÏotherwise€authorized€by€law.ðð€€The€forfeiture€provisions€of€the€Tennessee€Drug€Control€Act,€withÍslight€modifications,€are€modeled€upon€the€Uniform€Controlled€Substances€Act.€€In€rem€actionsÏhave€traditionally€been€viewed€as€civil€proceedings,€with€jurisdiction€dependent€upon€the€seizure€ofÏa€physical€object.€€òò89€Firearmsóó,€òòidóó.,€at€363.€€The€forfeiture€provision€in€the€Tennessee€statuteÏreaches€objects€ð ðused,€or€intended€for€useðð€in€violating€the€Tennessee€Drug€Control€Act,€andÏreaches€a€broader€range€of€conduct€than€its€criminal€analogue.€€These€forfeiture€statutes€furtherÏbroad€remedial€aims,€including,€among€others,€€preventing€the€use€of€forfeited€objects€in€furtherÏcriminal€acts€and€€preventing€criminals€from€enjoying€the€fruits€of€criminal€behavior.€€If€a€claim€isÏfiled,€the€state€has€the€burden€of€proving€ð ðby€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€seizedÏproperty€was€of€a€nature€making€its€possession€illegal€or€was€used€in€a€manner€making€it€subject€toÏforfeiture€.€.€.€.ðð€€This€clearly€is€the€standard€of€proof€required€in€civil€cases.€€Also,€the€hearing€isÏan€administrative€type€hearing.ÌÌà àIn€our€inquiry€concerning€whether€the€proceedings€are€so€punitive€in€fact€as€to€ð ð„persuadeÏus€that€the€forfeiture€proceedings€may€not€legitimately€be€viewed€as€civil€in€nature„ðð€despite€theÏintent€of€the€legislature,€we€conclude€that€forfeiture€proceedings€under€T.C.A.€ðð€53„11„201„204Ïand€T.C.A.€ðð€53„11„451€are€not€so€punitive€in€form€and€effect€as€to€render€them€criminal€despiteÏthe€legislative€intent€to€the€contrary.€€In€arriving€at€that€conclusion€we€again€look€to€the€holding€inÏòòUrseryóó,€òòsupraóó,€and€there€the€Court€pointed€out€many€nonpunitive€goals€served€by€forfeiture€ofÏproperty€used,€or€intended€to€be€used,€to€violate€federal€narcotics€laws.€€Examples€of€such€goalsÏset€forth€by€the€Court€are:€(1)€encourages€property€owners€to€take€care€in€managing€their€propertyÏand€ensures€that€they€will€not€permit€that€property€to€be€used€for€illegal€purposes,€(2)€preventsÍfurther€illicit€use€of€property,€(3)€removes€from€circulation€property€that€has€been€used,€or€intendedÏfor€use,€illegally,€(4)€prevents€forbidden€property€from€circulation,€(5)€prevents€persons€fromÏprofiting€from€their€illegal€acts,€and€(6)€serves€a€deterrent€purpose€distinct€from€any€punitiveÏpurpose.€€We€find€that€these€and€other€nonpunitive€goals€are€served€by€forfeitures€under€T.C.A.€ððÏ53„11„201„204€and€T.C.A.€ðð€53„11„451,€and€that€such€forfeitures€are€not€so€punitive€in€form€andÏeffect€as€to€render€them€criminal.€€ÌÌà àIn€òòUrseryóó,€òòsupraóó,€the€Court€further€held€ð ðthe€fact€that€a€forfeiture€statute€has€someÏconnection€to€a€criminal€violation€is€far€from€the€„clearest€proof„€necessary€to€show€that€aÏproceeding€is€criminal.ðð€€We€feel€there€is€ample€evidence€to€support€the€decision€that€forfeituresÏunder€T.C.A.€ðð€53„11„201„204€and€T.C.A.€ðð€53„11„451€are€civil,€and€that€they€should€not€beÏclassified€as€criminal€simply€because€they€are€a€part€of€the€Tennessee€Drug€Control€Act.€€Ì€€Ìà àWe€hold€that€the€forfeiture€of€appellant's€1983€Honda€automobile€was€a€civil€forfeiture;€andÏthat€the€civil€forfeiture€is€not€a€bar€to€criminal€prosecution€for€crimes€arising€out€of€the€sameÏconduct.ÌÌà àFor€the€reasons€stated€herein,€the€trial€court€is€affirmed,€and€the€case€is€remanded€to€the€trialÏcourt€for€all€necessary€proceedings€not€inconsistent€with€this€opinion.ÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€M.€Dender,€Special€JudgeÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJoseph€B.€Jones,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDavid€G.€Hayes,€JudgeÌÓ  Ó