University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 6-3-2008 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY vs. 1984 GMC S-15 Truck, VIN No. 1GTCS14B5E2523292, Seized from: Michael L. Woody, Date of Seizure: February 27, 2007, Claimant: Melissa R. Woody Potter, Lienholder: N/A Follow this and additional works at: http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_lawopinions This Initial Order by the Administrative Judges of the Administrative Procedures Division, Tennessee Department of State, is a public document made available by the College of Law Library, and the Tennessee Department of State, Administrative Procedures Division. For more information about this public document, please contact administrative.procedures@tn.gov
BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF THE TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY IN THE MATTER OF: ) ) TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT ) OF SAFETY ) ) DOCKET NO. 19.01-096209J v. ) [D.O.S. Case No. G 0940] ) 1984 GMC S-15 Truck ) VIN No. 1GTCS14B5E2523292 ) Seized from: Michael L. Woody ) Date of Seizure: February 27, 2007 ) Claimant: Melissa R. Woody Potter ) Lienholder: N/A ) INITIAL ORDER The contested administrative hearing in this matter was held on June 3, 2008, in Knoxville, Tennessee, before Mattielyn B. Williams, Administrative Judge, assigned by the Secretary of State, Administrative Procedures Division, and sitting for the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Safety. Ms. Nina Harris, Staff Attorney, Department of Safety, represented the State. Claimant Melissa R. Woody Potter was present and proceeded pro se. The subject of the hearing was the proposed forfeiture of the subject 1984 GMC S-15 Truck, seized for its alleged use in transporting, facilitating or as involved in an exchange, in violation of the Tennessee Drug Control Act, thus making the property subject to seizure, pursuant to T.C.A. 53-11-451. After consideration of the record, it is DETERMINED that the subject vehicle should be RETURNED to the Claimant, an Innocent Owner. 1
This decision is based upon the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Deputy Al Seitner, of the Cumberland County Sheriff s Department, testified that on February 27, 2007, in the evening, he observed the subject GMC truck, with no brake lights and no muffler. Deputy Seitner stopped the subject vehicle, as a result. Registration of the subject vehicle showed it belonged to Michael and Melissa Woody. Mr. Michael Woody had been driving the subject vehicle, agreed that the subject vehicle had no brake lights of muffler, but denied the Deputy consent to search the vehicle. The Deputy did recall that the vehicle had a passenger, other than the Driver, at the time of the stop. 2. The Deputy s narcotics dog was then employed. The dog alerted on a coat and on a green bag, behind the driver s seat. Four (4) sandwich baggies, containing a leafy, green substance that latter was tested to be four (4) ounces of marijuana, were found, along with pipes and rolling papers. Three (3) grams of cocaine and individually wrapped methamphetamine was also discovered. 3. Driver Woody admitted that the coat belonged to him and that the marijuana, cocaine, and meth were for re-sale. Driver was on probation at the time of the stop, so the criminal charges associated with the stop revoked the Driver s probation. Driver Woody was incarcerated at the time of the hearing. 4. Deputy Seitner talked with Claimant Melissa R. Woody Potter, four or five (4-5) hours after the Driver was arrested and the subject vehicle seized. 2
The Deputy continued that Claimant knew that Driver was in possession of the subject vehicle because she had loaned it to him. 5. Deputy Seitner testified that he was aware that both Driver and Claimant had histories of narcotic abuse, but continued that Claimant had been clean for four (4) years. Deputy Seitner further testified that he believed Claimant had knowledge of how the subject vehicle would be used. 6. Claimant Melissa R. Woody Potter testified that she and her husband had been separated for five (5) years, that she has turned her life around, that she moved to a different county, in order to start her life over and in order to no longer associate with users of illegal drugs, and that she had been drug-free for five (5) years, not just four (4) years. Claimant continued that she has held the same job and lived at the same location for five (5) years, outside of the county where the Driver lives(d). Claimant admitted that her marriage had involved drug addiction, domestic abuse, alcoholism, and that she and the Driver both had received drug convictions, during her marriage. Claimant continued that both she and Driver entered rehab, but that she was successful, whereas the Driver was not. 7. Claimant described May 7, 2003 as the day she left her husband and continued that she has been trying to file for divorce, but had not yet raised all the necessary funds. 8. Claimant and her daughter live in a trailer. Claimant purchased the subject vehicle, inexpensively, per her testimony. Claimant candidly admitted that she is a person who has Bi-polar Depression. 3
9. Claimant indicated that she felt her daughter had a right to see her father, so when he asked to borrow the truck to haul wood, she had no reason to doubt him. Exhibit 2, photographs of the mailbox area at the Woody-Wyatt household, where Driver lived, show numerous, stacked logs. From the stamping on the rear of the photographs, it appears that they were either taken or developed on May 30, 2007. 10. Mr. James Eddie Woody, brother of Driver Michael Woody, testified that he has helped the Driver haul wood. 11. Claimant thought it reasonable to provide transportation for the visits with her father, the Driver, a county away, since he had wrecked another vehicle earlier. Claimant admits that she did not drug test the Driver before lending him the subject vehicle. Claimant believes that if she would have asked Driver whether or not he contemplated other/illegal uses of the subject vehicle, he would not have admitted that he intended to use it to transport and sell illegal drugs. 12. Ms. Edna Wyatt, mother of Driver Michael Woody, testified that there were no operable vehicles in the Woody-Wyatt household, in the time period proceeding the seizure, that Driver was still in a cast and on crutches from the December 3 rd wreck of her (Ms. Wyatt s) vehicle, and that the Driver had not had custody of the subject vehicle that long, before it was seized. Ms. Wyatt continued that she was not aware that the Driver had placed illegal drugs in the subject vehicle. 4
13. No evidence was submitted that Driver paid for any portion of the subject vehicle s purchase price, insurance, maintenance, registration, etc. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Based on the record as a whole, the State has carried its burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject vehicle was used in a manner that violated the Tennessee Drug Control Act, i.e. to contain and transport illegal drugs for re-sale. Such violation subjects property to forfeiture pursuant to the provisions of T.C.A. 53-11-451. 2. The questions presented in this matter are whether or not Claimant is an owner or co-owner of the subject vehicle, and, whether or not Claimant is an innocent owner. 3. The State contended that because the Claimant knew that the Driver still associated with users of illegal narcotics and knew that Driver had failed rehabilitation efforts, that she should have known that Driver would use the subject vehicle to transport and sell illegal drugs. The State argued that the hauling wood purpose versus the transportation for daughter purpose constitute two (2) different stories. The State also noted that some of the Claimant s testimony concerned discussion of a fear of the law coming after her. 4. Claimant contends that she is an innocent owner because she did not have actual knowledge that her vehicle would be used in a manner that violates the 5
Tennessee Drug Control Act. Claimant further contends that she did not have reason to know or speculate that the subject vehicle would be used in that manner. 5. Based on Claimant s medical condition, it is CONCLUDED that Claimant s expression of fear of the law coming after her, is simply a fear associated with her medical condition and/or a fear, based on Claimant s lack of knowledge of the law. 6. Claimant testified that she purchased the subject vehicle. No evidence was presented to show that the Driver paid for any of the insurance, repairs, tires, maintenance and other aspects of vehicle maintenance. There was no evidence presented to show that the Driver drove the subject vehicle routinely, particularly with Claimant living in a different county from the Driver. Claimant had exclusive control of the subject vehicle, i.e. Driver had to seek permission to borrow the subject vehicle; it did not belong to him; Driver did not exercise the power and control of the vehicle that is associated with ownership or coownership. Given that Claimant and Driver were technically married, at the time of the purchase, it is not unusual that Driver would have been listed on the title as a co-owner. Thus, in light of the indicia of ownership under T.C.A. 40-33-204(d), it is CONCLUDED that the Claimant is the sole owner of the subject vehicle. 7. Based on the Claimant s demeanor, the consistency of her testimony, her conduct in conquering addiction, her conduct in moving away from the Driver s county of residence, her honesty and sincerity, her limited finances, her struggle to buy an older, modest vehicle, her desire to keep communication open 6
between her daughter and the Driver, and her uncontroverted testimony, it is CONCLUDED that Claimant did not have actual knowledge that the Driver would be using the subject vehicle in violation of the Tennessee Drug Control Act. 8. Deputy Seitner testified that he believes and the State contends that Claimant had reason to know, or should have known, that her vehicle would be used in violation of the Tennessee Drug Control Act, if she loaned it to him. The bulk of Deputy Seitner s testimony is consistent, well-explained, CREDIBLE and is CREDITED. However, the portion of Deputy Seitner s testimony concerning his belief that the Claimant knew how the vehicle would be used, is CONCLUDED to have provided little basis for that belief. 9. Based on the Claimant s demeanor, the consistency of her testimony, her conduct in conquering addiction, in moving away from the Driver s county of residence, her honesty and sincerity, her limited finances, her struggle to buy an older, modest vehicle, her desire to keep communication open between her daughter and the Driver, and in light of her struggle against mental illness, it is CONCLUDED that this particular Claimant did not foresee that Driver would be using the subject vehicle in violation of the Tennessee Drug Control Act. Claimant s testimony that she neither had actual knowledge nor, in fact, foresaw that Driver would use the vehicle to facilitate drug sales is CREDIBLE and is CREDITED. 10. Claimant, just like Driver, was a person with prior drug convictions, yet, Claimant herself would not use her hard-worked-for vehicle in violation of the 7
Tennessee Drug Control Act. Claimant thought, perhaps naively, that Driver would hold the same values, particularly when around their daughter, and in light of Claimant s December 2007 major car accident. 11. Perhaps another Claimant with more education, more distance, more options, and without medical impairments, would have had the time and wherewithal to reflect and had the insight to be able to foresee that the Driver was so addicted to drugs, and therefore compelled to sell them, that he would betray the Claimant s loan of an older truck and betray the Claimant s genuine interest in attempting to maintain a positive relationship between Driver and their daughter, but it is CONCLUDED that the instant Claimant did not. Thus, Claimant is declared to be an INNOCENT OWNER. 12. Based on the above, accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that subject vehicle be RETURNED to Claimant Melissa R. Woody Potter, an innocent owner. This Initial Order entered and effective this 29th day of July, 2008. Mattielyn B. Williams Administrative Judge 8
Filed in the Administrative Procedures Division, Office of the Secretary of State this 29th day of July, 2008. Thomas G. Stovall, Director Administrative Procedures Division 9