Does a Tennessee police chief or sheriff have to attach evidence when certifying to a court that a confiscated weapon is inoperable or unsafe?

Plain-English summary

Attorney General Herbert Slatery III addressed how much paperwork a Tennessee law enforcement official needed to file with the court when certifying that a confiscated weapon was inoperable or unsafe under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1317(i). The statute lets the court order such weapons destroyed, recycled, or transferred to a museum on the certification of a chief of police, a sheriff, a judicial-district drug task force director, the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security, or the Director of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. The question was whether the certifying official had to attach evidence (test results, gunsmith reports, photographs) backing up the inoperability assertion.

The AG answered no. The reasoning had three parts. First, "certify" in its ordinary meaning is an attestation or formal statement, not a record-production duty. Black's Law Dictionary defines the verb as "authenticate or verify in writing" or "attest as being true or meeting certain criteria." Second, the statute does not impose any content requirement on the certification, and Tennessee courts (consistent with sister-state authority cited in the opinion) generally do not read content requirements into statutes that do not have them. Third, the legislative history specifically addressed and rejected the audit-trail idea: Senators Jackson and Gresham agreed during debate on S.B. 2334 in 2009 that no audit trail was needed.

Practically, that meant a signed statement by the listed official, in writing or as oral testimony in court, was enough. The opinion suggested an affidavit as the most prudent format and noted that nothing in the statute prevented an officer from voluntarily presenting supporting evidence. The point was that the statute did not require it.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2021. 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.

Common questions

Q: Who can sign the certification?
A: As of 2021, only five officials could certify under § 39-17-1317(i): a chief of police, a sheriff, the director of a judicial-district drug task force, the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security, and the Director of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. A line officer or detective could not certify on their own; the certification had to come from one of these named officials (or, presumably, an authorized designee under any general delegation rules in the relevant agency).

Q: What did the certification trigger?
A: A court order requiring the weapon to be destroyed, recycled, or transferred to a museum or historical society. Once the certification was filed, the court's decision was constrained: § 39-17-1317(i) used "shall" rather than "may" for the disposition order.

Q: What if the weapon turned out to be operable after all?
A: The opinion did not address that scenario. As a practical matter, once the statute's certification was on file and the court ordered destruction, recovery would depend on whether the weapon's owner had grounds to challenge the certification before the destruction occurred. The opinion's stance that no evidence is required cuts against pre-destruction challenges based on insufficient proof.

Q: Should officials still keep records of why a weapon was deemed inoperable?
A: The opinion didn't require it, but agencies often kept those records for audit, litigation defense, and policy reasons. The opinion's holding was that the certifying official need not file the records with the court along with the certification, not that the records should not exist.

Q: Could the officer just testify orally in court instead of filing a written certification?
A: The opinion suggested oral testimony before the court "also appears to be an option," with a signed affidavit identified as the more prudent path. The statute uses "certifies," which the AG read broadly enough to cover formal in-court attestations as well as written ones.

Q: Are there parallel certification statutes that work the same way?
A: The opinion cited Lake v. Motor Vehicles Div., 892 P.2d 1025 (Or. App. 1995), for the proposition that "certify the accuracy" of breath alcohol testing equipment was satisfied by a signed form. Sister-state authority (State v. Furley, Brown v. U.S. Nat. Bank of Omaha) supported the same minimalist reading of "certify" in other contexts.

Background and statutory framework

Tennessee Code Ann. § 39-17-1317 sets up a structured disposition regime for weapons that come into law enforcement custody. Subsection (a)(1) imposes a duty to confiscate weapons used or possessed unlawfully. Subsection (b) reaches abandoned or voluntarily surrendered weapons. Once a weapon is in custody, the agency has options: it can sell the weapon at public sale, use it for legitimate law enforcement purposes, or, under (i), have it destroyed, recycled, or transferred to a museum if certified as inoperable or unsafe.

Subsection (i) is the destruction pathway. Its core mechanism is the certification by one of the listed officials, followed by a court order. The drafting choice to put the determination in the official's hands rather than require an evidentiary hearing was deliberate. The opinion noted that the legislative history confirmed the General Assembly weighed and rejected an audit-trail requirement.

Two practical observations follow. The certifying official's professional judgment was the gatekeeping element; courts were not asked to second-guess it. And because no content requirement appeared in the statute, the form of the certification (affidavit, sworn statement on a department letterhead, in-court testimony) was a matter of practice and prudence, not a statutory check. The AG's recommendation of an affidavit reflected good record-keeping more than a legal requirement.

Citations and references

Statutes (as of 2021):
- Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1317(a)(1) (duty to confiscate unlawful weapons)
- Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1317(b) (abandoned/surrendered weapons)
- Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1317(b)(1)-(2) (public sale or law-enforcement use of safe weapons)
- Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1317(i) (court-ordered destruction on certification)

Cases and prior opinion:
- Mills v. Fulmarque, Inc., 360 S.W.3d 362 (Tenn. 2012)
- State v. Clark, 355 S.W.3d 590 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011)
- Burress v. Sanders, 31 S.W.3d 259 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000)
- Tenn. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 90-04 (Jan. 10, 1990)
- Lake v. Motor Vehicles Div., 892 P.2d 1025 (Or. App. 1995)
- State v. Furley, 890 S.W.2d 538 (Tex. App. 1994)
- Brown v. U.S. Nat. Bank of Omaha, 371 N.W.2d 692 (Neb. 1985)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/opinions.html
• Original PDF: https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/attorneygeneral/documents/ops/2021/op21-09.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort reproduction; the linked PDF is authoritative.

STATE OF TENNESSEE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
June 9, 2021

Opinion No. 21-09

Law Enforcement Certification that a Weapon Is Inoperable or Unsafe

Question

Does law enforcement need to provide supporting evidence when certifying to a court that a weapon is inoperable or unsafe and, therefore, eligible for destruction under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1317(i)?

Opinion

No.

ANALYSIS

Tennessee law enforcement agencies have a duty to confiscate weapons that have been "possessed, used, or sold in violation of the law." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1317(a)(1). They may also take possession of abandoned weapons and weapons that have been voluntarily surrendered to them. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1317(b). If these weapons are safe and operable, law enforcement agencies may sell them in public sales or use them for legitimate law enforcement purposes. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1317(b)(1)–(2). However, if a specified law enforcement official "certifies to the court that a [confiscated] weapon is inoperable or unsafe," the court must then order that the weapon be destroyed, recycled, or transferred to a museum or historical society. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1317(i).

The inoperable-or-unsafe statute does not define the word "certify" or specify whether these officials must provide evidence to support their statements that a weapon is inoperable or unsafe. Id. But the ordinary meaning of the word "certify" and the legislative history of the statute indicate that these officials do not need to provide supporting evidence.

Words used in a statute "must be given their natural and ordinary meaning in the context in which they appear and in light of the statute's general purpose." Mills v. Fulmarque, Inc., 360 S.W.3d 362, 368 (Tenn. 2012). A dictionary is the "usual and accepted source" for the "natural and ordinary meaning" of statutory language when the General Assembly has not defined a statutory term. State v. Clark, 355 S.W.3d 590, 593 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).

"Certify" generally means to "attest or confirm in a formal statement," New Oxford American Dictionary 284 (3d ed. 2010), or to "authenticate or verify in writing" or to "attest as being true or meeting certain criteria." Certify, Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019); see also Burress v. Sanders, 31 S.W.3d 259, 264 n.5 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (relying on the definition of "certify" in Black's Law Dictionary); Tenn. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 90-04 (Jan. 10, 1990) (same). In light of this definition, all that is required for a law enforcement official to certify a weapon is inoperable or unsafe is the officer's attestation, verification, or confirmation of that fact in a formal statement made to the court. The formal statement is probably best made in a signed writing, such as an affidavit, although oral testimony before the court also appears to be an option. No additional evidence is required.

The legislative history of the inoperable-or-unsafe statute also indicates the General Assembly did not intend for law enforcement officials to provide supporting evidence to certify a weapon is inoperable or unsafe. When discussing the scope of the statute, Senators Jackson and Gresham agreed that law enforcement would not need to maintain an audit trail demonstrating that the weapon was inoperable or unsafe. Debate on S.B. 2334, 106th Gen. Assem. (Tn. June 8, 2009) (statements of Sen. Jackson and Sen. Gresham). The General Assembly deemed it sufficient that law enforcement officials petition the court to dispose of the weapon and inform the court that a weapon was inoperable or unsafe. Id.

The way law enforcement officials may certify a weapon is inoperable or unsafe is quite broad. The statute does not impose any particular requirements for the content of the certification. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1317(i). When a statute does not impose particular requirements on a certification, courts generally do not require that the certifications contain specific terminology. See Lake v. Motor Vehicles Div., 892 P.2d 1025, 1027 (Or. App. 1995) (finding that, when a state police technician had a statutory duty to "certify the accuracy" of breath alcohol testing equipment, the technician merely had to "sign the form attesting to its accuracy" and the signature gave "the form the authority and formality required to certify the accuracy of the test conducted on the . . . equipment"); State v. Furley, 890 S.W.2d 538, 539 (Tex. App. 1994); Brown v. U.S. Nat. Bank of Omaha, 371 N.W.2d 692, 700-01 (Neb. 1985); see also Tenn. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 90-04 (Jan. 10, 1990) (noting that "prudence would dictate" a party replicate the language in a statute when making a certification, but it is not required). So, law enforcement officials may certify that a weapon is inoperable or unsafe in any number of ways, including by stating that, based upon their professional opinions, the weapon is inoperable or unsafe. And, although Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1317(i) does not require that evidence be produced in support of the certification, it does not prevent a law enforcement officer from presenting such evidence.

Thus, when certifying under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1317(i) that a weapon is inoperable or unsafe, law enforcement officials do not need to provide evidence showing a weapon is eligible for destruction. They only need to attest or verify in a formal statement to the court that the weapon is inoperable or unsafe.

HERBERT H. SLATERY III
Attorney General and Reporter

ANDRÉE SOPHIA BLUMSTEIN
Solicitor General

MIRANDA JONES
Assistant Attorney General

Requested by:

The Honorable Darren Jernigan
State Representative
425 Rep. John Lewis Way North
Cordell Hull Bldg., Suite 572
Nashville, Tennessee 37243