Griffin v. State
| Decision Date | 03 January 1980 |
| Citation | 595 S.W.2d 96 |
| Parties | John GRIFFIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Tennessee, Appellee. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals |
John C. Nowell, Jr., Tom W. Crider, Trenton, for appellant.
William M. Leech, Jr., Atty. Gen., William M. Barrick, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, Tenn., A. H. Schoonover, Clayburn Peeples, Asst. Dist. Attys. Gen., Trenton, for appellee.
At a bench trial, the defendant, John Griffin, was fined $50.00 after being found guilty of violating regulations promulgated by the Tennessee Commissioner of Agriculture and the State Veterinarian. The main thrust of the several issues presented on this appeal is an attack on the validity of the regulations. We resolve all issues in favor of the State and affirm the conviction.
The Statute under which the regulation was promulgated is T.C.A. § 44-407 which provides in relevant part:
The commissioner of agriculture and the state veterinarian shall have the general supervision of all domestic animals . . . within . . . the state, and they are empowered to establish quarantine against any animal . . . and may make such rules and regulations against the spread and for the suppression of any communicable disease or diseases as in their judgment may seem necessary and proper . . .
Pursuant to the above code section, Rule 0080-2-1-.13, relating to the disease equine infectious anemia (EIA), commonly referred to as swamp fever, was promulgated by the Commissioner and State Veterinarian in the following language:
0080-2-1-.13 TENNESSEE REGULATIONS REGARDING HANDLING OF POSITIVE EQUINE INFECTIONS ANEMIA-AGAR GEL IMMUNODIFFUSION HORSES AND OTHER EQUIDAE.
(1) Horses or other equines found positive to official agar gel immunodiffusion test for equine infections anemia (EIA-AGID) shall be subjected to a confirmatory retest by a regulatory veterinarian.
(2) Animal positive on confirmatory test may be:
(a) Euthanized by owner or his private veterinarian within sixty (60) days with certification of euthanasia by an accredited veterinarian or regulatory veterinarian or inspector, or
(b) Freeze-branded on the left side of the neck with the character 63A and the official reactor number of the animal. This branding shall be carried out by a regulatory veterinarian or inspector.
(3) When a previously positive animal is found negative to official confirmatory test, all equines associated with that animal on the premises (farm, pasture, or stable) shall be officially tested by a regulatory veterinarian.
(4) Officially branded reactor horses shall be put under written quarantine until destroyed or dead of natural causes. If no other horses are located within 250 yards without common shade, pasture quarantine will suffice. If there are other horses sharing the stable or farm, a screened stall shall be required.
(5) Foals nursing reactor mares shall be considered quarantined with their dams. Weaned foals may be released if negative to EIA-AGID test after a 90-day period of isolation from their dam and other equines.
(6) Movement of quarantined animals shall be made only on written permit by the Tennessee State Veterinarian or his representative.
Authority: T.C.A. Sections 44-407 and 44-413. Administrative History. Rule filed June 25, 1975, effective July 25, 1975.
The defendant owned three horses found positive to an agar gel immunodiffusion test, most commonly referred to as the "Coggins Test," administered by his private veterinarian. A confirmatory official retest was made by a regulatory veterinarian which was also positive for swamp fever. After the positive retest was made known to the defendant, he refused to brand or quarantine the horses as required by the regulation; he does not dispute the finding that he refused to comply with the regulation.
Issues for review 1, 4, and 8 challenge the validity of the regulation as being unreasonable and arbitrary. We agree that a regulation which is arbitrary and unreasonable is void as a matter of law. Bishop v. State, 122 Tenn. 729, 127 S.W. 698, 701, 65 A.L.R. 528 (1930); Thompson v. Consolidated Gas Utilities Corp., 300 U.S. 55, 57 S.Ct. 364, 81 L.Ed. 510 (1937). It is settled that a regulation promulgated by the Commissioner of Agriculture pursuant to a statute empowering him to make such regulations to prevent the spread of diseases in domestic animals, is valid, and is a reasonable exercise of the power granted. Bishop v. State, supra. In considering the validity of the above-quoted regulation, we must bear in mind the evil which the statute seeks to control or eliminate. McQueen v. McCanless, 182 Tenn. 453, 187 S.W.2d 630, 633 (1945).
Several highly qualified expert witnesses testified on behalf of both the State and the defendant at trial. We do not deem it necessary to burden this opinion by detailing the evidence of these expert witnesses. There was evidence that the defendant's horses were asymptomatic or inapparent carriers of the swamp fever disease. There was substantial evidence that swamp fever is a communicable disease and that the Coggins Test can be relied upon to identify infected horses. There are several means of communication of the disease, but the most common method is the transfer of blood from an infected animal to a healthy animal by bite of the horsefly. Quarantine of infected horses is effective in preventing spread of the disease and the use of a brand is necessary to prevent violation of the quarantine and the introduction of infected animals into commerce. There was also substantial evidence that an inapparent carrier can transmit the disease to healthy horses, represents a risk to other horses, and if not identified and quarantined, can spread the disease.
The views of the defendant's experts differed in some respects from those of the State's. All of the experts agree that swamp fever is a communicable disease in at least two classes, the acute and sub-acute. There is a sharp difference of opinion with respect to the third class, the inapparent carrier.
Though experts may differ and alternatives to the agency rule may be thought reasonable by many experts in the field, courts will not disturb a reasonable decision of the agency with expertise, experience, and knowledge, in the appropriate field. This principle was expressed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Mourning v. Family Publication Services, Inc., 411 U.S. 356, 371, 93 S.Ct. 1652, 1662, 36 L.Ed.2d 318, 331 (1975):
"We have consistently held that where reasonable minds may differ as to which of several remedial measures should be chosen, courts should defer to the informed experience and judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pruitt
...603, 607 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) ; State v. Godsey , No. 52, 1991 WL 50180, at *2 n.1 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) ; Griffin v. State , 595 S.W.2d 96, 100 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980).However, the Court of Criminal Appeals has relied on the fifth category occasionally, including in the case sub judic......
-
Tennessee Cable Television Ass'n v. Tennessee Public Service Com'n
...promulgate rules that are so lacking in reason that they are patently arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious. Griffin v. State, 595 S.W.2d 96, 99 (Tenn.Crim.App.1980); see also Benton v. Board of Supervisors of Napa County, 226 Cal.App.3d 1467, 277 Cal.Rptr. 481, 488 (1991); Granite City Di......
-
Wayne County v. Tennessee Solid Waste Disposal Control Bd.
...57-58 (Tenn.1984); Illinois Cent. Gulf R.R. v. Tennessee Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 736 S.W.2d 112, 117 (Tenn.Ct.App.1987); Griffin v. State, 595 S.W.2d 96, 99 (Tenn.Crim.App.1980). Accordingly, judicial review of an agency's action follows the narrow, statutorily defined standard contained in Tenn......
-
State v. Matthews
...State v. Williams, 638 S.W.2d 417, 421 (Tenn.Crim.App.1982) [affidavit which was not considered by court]; Griffin v. State, 595 S.W.2d 96, 100-101 (Tenn.Crim.App.1980) [an article from the Journal of Equine Medicine and Surgery which was not considered by the court].33 See Tenn.R.App.P. 24......