Tubbs v. Long
| Decision Date | 28 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. M2019-00627-COA-R3-CV,M2019-00627-COA-R3-CV |
| Citation | 610 S.W.3d 1 |
| Parties | Wanda TUBBS v. Jeff LONG, as Commissioner of Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Drew Justice, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, for the appellant, Wanda Tubbs.
Herbert H. Slatery, III, Attorney General and Reporter, and Miranda Jones, Assistant Attorney General, for the appellee, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security.
Thomas R. Frierson, II, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Frank G. Clement, Jr., P.J., M.S., and W. Neal McBrayer, J., joined.
This case involves the seizure of a Michael Kors bag containing approximately $95,000 in United States currency by police officers who were executing a search warrant at the petitioner's property during a criminal investigation in May 2017. The petitioner rented the home to her son and his girlfriend, but the petitioner did not reside there. In addition to the $95,000 at issue, officers also discovered at the residence other paraphernalia, including cocaine, marijuana, prescription drugs, several handguns, electronic scales, a money counter, and additional currency. The total amount of currency discovered by officers at the residence was $153,652. Officers seized all currency and sought a forfeiture warrant on the grounds that the money constituted proceeds considered traceable to a violation of the Tennessee Drug Control Act. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 53-11-451(a)(6)(A) (Supp. 2019). The petitioner's son subsequently pled guilty to several counts of possession with the intent to distribute controlled substances and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The petitioner filed a petition with the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security ("the State"), requesting an administrative hearing regarding "the majority of" the amount of currency that was seized by law enforcement. Following a hearing, the administrative law judge ("ALJ") entered a final order, determining that the personal property in question was properly seized and thereby subject to forfeiture. The petitioner subsequently filed a petition for judicial review with the Circuit Court of Davidson County ("trial court"). Following a hearing, the trial court, employing a substantial and material evidence standard of review, affirmed the ALJ's determination that the currency was subject to forfeiture. The petitioner has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.
This appeal arose from the trial court's order affirming the ALJ's findings and determination that $153,652 in United States currency was properly seized by the State as proceeds from drug trafficking and, as such, was subject to forfeiture. The petitioner, Wanda Tubbs, co-owned the mobile home where the seizure occurred ("the residence") but did not reside there. Ms. Tubbs leased the residence to her son, Terrance Martin, who was engaged to be married to Shaundra Smith. Mr. Martin and Ms. Smith lived together in the residence, along with Ms. Smith's seventeen-year-old son, I.S., at all times relevant to this appeal.
According to essentially undisputed findings of fact contained in the ALJ's order, three individuals broke into the residence on February 17, 2017, and held Ms. Smith and I.S. at gunpoint. Mr. Martin was not present at the time. It is further undisputed that the intruders demanded money stored in a safe within the house and stole approximately five to ten thousand dollars. After the intruders allegedly forced I.S. to drive them to a location where they subsequently fled, Ms. Smith and her son reported the incident to the Cannon County Sheriff's Department ("Sheriff's Department"). Investigator Brandon Gullett, a narcotics officer with the Sheriff's Department, responded to the call. Upon Investigator Gullett's arrival at the residence, he detected the aroma of raw marijuana emanating from the house. When Investigator Gullett entered the home, he and accompanying officers located approximately one ounce of raw marijuana and some remnants of smoked marijuana, as well as a marijuana grinder and a set of electric scales.
Upon conducting his investigation of the home invasion, Investigator Gullett determined that I.S. had been found in possession of marijuana on a prior occasion. Investigator Gullett also learned that Mr. Martin lived at the residence and was on probation for felony drug charges. Subsequently, Investigator Gullett conducted surveillance of the residence to determine if drug trafficking activities were taking place.
On May 4, 2017, Deputy Brandon King with the Sheriff's Department arrived at the residence to serve Mr. Martin with civil process. I.S. came to the door and accepted the paperwork from Deputy King. It is undisputed that Deputy King reported to Investigator Gullett that he detected a strong odor of raw marijuana coming from the residence. Investigator Gullett subsequently obtained a search warrant, which he executed at the residence. While conducting the search of the home, Investigator Gullett and other officers discovered approximately 0.5 ounces of marijuana, 13.14 grams of crack cocaine, and a large number of Oxycodone tablets found in pill bottles bearing names of persons unknown to the investigation, some of which had been filled in other states. Officers also discovered a money counter, electronic scales, several handguns, and a drug sales ledger.
In addition to the drug paraphernalia, officers discovered a Sun City bag containing $26,000; a grocery bag containing $21,000; and a purse containing approximately $12,000. Pertinent to this appeal, officers also discovered a wooden box in an upstairs hallway that contained a Michael Kors bag containing $93,740. All of the currency discovered by law enforcement was packaged in $1,000 or $5,000 bundles, held together by rubber bands that were placed in similar fashion on each bundle. Law enforcement subsequently arrested both Mr. Martin and Ms. Smith.
Based on evidence proffered during the hearing, the ALJ made several findings of fact concerning the incident, including that either Ms. Smith or I.S. summoned Ms. Tubbs to the residence. When Ms. Tubbs arrived at the home, officers were still executing the search warrant. Ms. Tubbs initially told officers that she owned the residence and that there was $150,000 in currency in the home belonging to her. She also explained to officers that in 2013 she had received a settlement for a work-related injury in the amount of $150,000. Ms. Tubbs then related to officers that she had transferred $50,000 of the settlement to Mr. Martin as a gift and had entrusted Mr. Martin with the $95,000 in the Michael Kors bag while she went on vacation to Mississippi. According to Ms. Tubbs's testimony, she habitually left her money with Mr. Martin or her sister when she travelled on vacation because she distrusted banks.
Ms. Tubbs filed a petition with the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security on June 15, 2017, requesting a hearing concerning all of the $153,652 seized and stating: "The majority of this amount seized belonged to me."2 The ALJ scheduled the case for a trial on January 30, 2018. On December 22, 2017, Ms. Tubbs filed a "Motion to Suppress Evidence and to Return Unlawfully Seized Property," wherein she alleged that the search warrant procured to search her residence was insufficient because it was predicated on "two separate falsehoods." The State subsequently filed a response on January 22, 2018, wherein it defended the validity of the search warrant and asserted, inter alia , that Ms. Tubbs lacked standing to contest the search.
Following the trial on January 30, 2018, both parties filed post-hearing briefs. On June 14, 2018, the ALJ issued a final order with the following "Summary of Determination":
It is DETERMINED that [the State] showed, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the $153,652 was properly seized and is subject to forfeiture. The burden then shifted to [Ms. Tubbs] to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she has an ownership interest in the $93,740 she claims. [Ms. Tubbs] has failed to make this showing. Accordingly, the entire $153,652 is forfeited to the seizing agency.
In the order, the ALJ also delineated his respective findings of fact and conclusions of law and ordered the dismissal of Ms. Tubbs's claim.
On August 13, 2018, Ms. Tubbs filed a petition for judicial review with the trial court, wherein she requested, inter alia , that the trial court reverse the ALJ's judgment and "order the return of the $95,000 stored in the Michael Kors bag." Following a hearing conducted on February 22, 2019, the trial court affirmed the ALJ's decision on March 7, 2019. In its order, the trial court determined that the ALJ "made the correct findings of facts and properly applied the facts to the law in determining the property was subject to forfeiture."
Ms. Tubbs timely filed her notice of appeal to this Court along with a purported statement of the evidence. Following the State's objection, the trial court denied the statement of the evidence because a stenographic report of the proceedings was available pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(b). According to the trial court's directive, the respective transcript is included in the record on appeal.
Ms. Tubbs has presented three issues on appeal, which we have restated and reordered:
The State presents three additional issues on appeal, which we have restated, reordered, and consolidated as two...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Tubbs v. Long
-
Oliver v. Tenn. Dep't of Safety & Homeland Sec.
...standing. See id. § 53-11-201(f)(1)(A) (2022). The claimant's standing is a threshold determination in a forfeiture case. Tubbs v. Long, 610 S.W.3d 1, 13 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2020). On appeal, Ms. Oliver maintains that she established standing. The administrative judge found that she was the reg......
-
Washington v. City of Memphis Civil Serv. Comm'n
...standard of review on appeal, although noting that it would impose a heavier burden. Id. at 821 n.10. See also Tubbs v. Long, 610 S.W.3d 1, 8 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2020) ("Although we agree that preponderance of the evidence, not substantial and material evidence, is the proper standard of review......