Can Tennessee counties use drug-forfeiture money to pay for destroying seized illegal drugs?

Subject

Opinion No. 11-62, Use of Proceeds From the Sale of Property Forfeited for Violations of the Drug Control Act, August 25, 2011

Plain-English summary

Representative Kent Williams asked whether a county can use proceeds from property forfeited under the Drug Control Act to pay expenses incurred in destroying illegal drugs seized by law enforcement officers. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-420 directs the proceeds into a special revenue fund and limits how that fund may be used.

The AG said yes. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-420(a)(1)(A) limits the use of the special revenue fund to "[l]ocal drug enforcement program[s]." The AG read that phrase by its plain meaning and found it "sufficiently broad to encompass a wide variety of activities" reasonably related to enforcing the drug laws. Seizing, storing, and disposing of unlawful controlled substances all count as drug enforcement. The destruction of seized drugs is therefore a permissible expense from the special revenue fund.

The AG also pointed to Tenn. Code Ann. § 53-11-204, which authorizes state agencies to use seizure proceeds "for use in the enforcement of this chapter and other laws of this state regulating narcotic drugs and marijuana." The parallel statutory structure supports the same reading at the local level: destruction is a basic enforcement cost.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2011. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Anyone budgeting current expenditures from forfeiture proceeds should check the current text of Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-17-420 and 53-11-451 before relying on this 2011 opinion.

Background and statutory framework

Forfeiture authority. Tenn. Code Ann. § 53-11-451 authorizes seizure and forfeiture of property tied to drug law violations. Subsection (a)(1) covers controlled substances themselves. Subsection (a)(4) covers aircraft, vehicles, and vessels used in drug trafficking. Subsection (a)(6) covers proceeds from drug sales.

Disposition. Subsection (d) allows seized vehicles, aircraft, and vessels to be sold or used in drug enforcement programs. Subsection (j) requires destruction of controlled substances no longer needed as evidence.

The local special revenue fund. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-420(a)(1)(A) provides that proceeds of goods seized and forfeited under § 53-11-451 "shall be accounted for in a special revenue fund of the jurisdiction that initiated the arrest." The fund "may be used only for the following purposes: (A) Local drug enforcement program[s.]"

Interpretive principle. State v. Sliger, 846 S.W.2d 262, 263 (Tenn. 1993): the primary rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the Legislature's intent. Carson Creek Vacation Resorts, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 865 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tenn. 1993): plain and ordinary meaning controls when statutory language is unambiguous.

Parallel state-level provision. Tenn. Code Ann. § 53-11-204 allows state-agency seizure proceeds to be used "for use in the enforcement of this chapter and other laws of this state regulating narcotic drugs and marijuana." The AG used this parallel as confirming that "drug enforcement" naturally includes operational costs like destruction.

Common questions

Did the AG approve specific drug-destruction methods or expense categories?

No. The AG concluded that expenses incurred in destroying illegal drugs may be paid from the special revenue fund because destruction is reasonably related to local drug enforcement. The opinion does not discuss incinerator contracts, transportation, or hazardous-waste handling as separate expenses.

Does the answer change if the seized drugs were never connected to a successful prosecution?

The opinion quotes Tenn. Code Ann. § 53-11-451(j) for the rule that controlled substances are destroyed when no longer needed as evidence. It does not discuss how the outcome of a prosecution affects the use of forfeiture proceeds.

Can the fund pay for officer training on drug-destruction protocols?

The opinion does not address training expenses. Its conclusion concerns expenses incurred in destroying illegal drugs.

Does this opinion apply to forfeitures under other statutes?

The opinion addresses only proceeds from property forfeited under Tenn. Code Ann. § 53-11-451 and deposited under § 39-17-420(a)(1)(A). It does not decide how proceeds under other forfeiture laws may be spent.

What if a county's drug-destruction cost exceeds the fund's balance?

The opinion does not address a shortfall or identify another funding source. It holds only that drug-destruction expenses are a permitted use of the special revenue fund.

Citations

• Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 53-11-451, -451(a)(1), -451(a)(4), -451(a)(6), -451(d), -451(j)
• Tenn. Code Ann. § 53-11-204
• Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-420(a)(1)(A)
• State v. Sliger, 846 S.W.2d 262 (Tenn. 1993)
• Carson Creek Vacation Resorts, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 865 S.W.2d 1 (Tenn. 1993)
• Hamblen County Educ. Ass'n v. Hamblen County Bd. of Educ., 892 S.W.2d 428 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994)
• Natural Gas Distributors, Inc. v. State, 804 S.W.2d 66 (Tenn. 1991)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/opinions.html
• Original PDF: https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/attorneygeneral/documents/ops/2011/op11-062.pdf

Original opinion text

August 25, 2011
Opinion No. 11-62
Use of Proceeds From the Sale of Property Forfeited for Violations of the Drug Control Act

QUESTION

Can counties utilize funds collected pursuant to the forfeiture provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated § 53-11-451 to pay for expenses incurred to destroy illegal drugs seized by law enforcement officers?

OPINION

Yes, the use of proceeds from the sale of property forfeited pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 53-11-451 to pay expenses incurred in the destruction of such illegal drugs is authorized under Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17-420(a)(1)(A).

ANALYSIS

Tennessee Code Annotated § 53-11-451 authorizes the seizure and forfeiture of property and other items for violations of Tennessee's drug laws. Under that statute, all controlled substances unlawfully manufactured, dispensed, distributed or acquired are subject to forfeiture. Tenn. Code Ann. § 53-11-451(a)(1). Other property subject to forfeiture under this statute includes aircraft, vehicles or vessels used to transport or facilitate the transfer, sale or receipt of unlawful controlled substances, or the materials used to manufacture such unlawful controlled substances, Tenn. Code Ann. § 53-11-451(a)(4), and all proceeds from the sale of unlawful controlled substances, Tenn. Code Ann. § 53-11-451(a)(6).

Tennessee Code Annotated § 53-11-451 also governs the disposition of property forfeited for violations of the drug laws - property such as automobiles, aircraft and vessels may be sold or used in drug enforcement programs. Tenn. Code Ann. § 53-11-451(d). Unlawful controlled substances are to be destroyed if they are no longer needed as evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 53-11-451(j).

Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17-420 generally provides the ways by which the proceeds from the sale of property forfeited pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 53-11-451 may be used, stating in pertinent part:

… (T)he proceeds of goods seized and forfeited under the provisions of § 53-11-451 and disposed of according to law, shall be accounted for in a special revenue fund of the jurisdiction that initiated the arrest. … Moneys in the special revenue fund may be used only for the following purposes:

(A) Local drug enforcement program[s.]

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-420(a)(1)(A).

Thus the question presented is whether the actual destruction of illegal drugs is part of the "local drug enforcement program." The most basic rule in statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the Legislature's intent. State v. Sliger, 846 S.W.2d 262, 263 (Tenn. 1993). Generally, such intent shall be derived from the plain and ordinary meaning of the statutory language when a statute's language is unambiguous. Carson Creek Vacation Resorts, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 865 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tenn. 1993). Legislative intent or purpose is to be ascertained primarily from the natural and ordinary meaning of the language used, without any forced or subtle construction that would limit or extend the meaning of the language. Hamblen County Educ. Ass'n v. Hamblen County Bd. of Educ., 892 S.W.2d 428, 431 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994), citing Natural Gas Distributors, Inc. v. State, 804 S.W.2d 66 (Tenn. 1991). Where the language contained within the four corners of a statute is plain, clear, and unambiguous and the enactment is within legislative competency, "the duty of the courts is simple and obvious, namely, to say sic lex scripta, and obey it." Carson Creek Vacation Resorts, 865 S.W.2d at 2.

The language of Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17-420(a)(1)(A) is unambiguous. The term "local drug enforcement program" is sufficiently broad to encompass a wide variety of activities. In its natural and ordinary meaning, the term includes any activity that is reasonably related to the enforcement of drug laws. The term accordingly would include efforts to seize, store and dispose of unlawful controlled substances and other contraband.

Such a construction is also consistent with the purposes of the asset forfeiture laws. One such purpose is to use the proceeds from such forfeitures to defray expenses incurred to enforce the drug laws. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 53-11-204 (proceeds of all seizures, confiscations and sales made by a state agency pursuant to the Drug Control Act may be allocated "for use in the enforcement of this chapter and other laws of this state regulating narcotic drugs and marijuana"). The destruction of unlawful controlled substances seized in connection with the enforcement of the drug laws is clearly such an expense.

1 This Office has previously recognized that "the language of Tenn. Code Annotated § 39-17-420(a)(1) is clear and unambiguous." Op. Tenn. Atty. Gen. No. 03-028 (Mar. 14, 2003); Op. Tenn. Atty. Gen. No. 99-202 (Oct. 6, 1999).

ROBERT E. COOPER, JR.
Attorney General and Reporter

FRANK BORGER-GILLIGAN
Assistant Attorney General

Requested by:
The Honorable Kent Williams
State Representative
G-2 War Memorial Bldg.
Nashville, TN 37243