Opinion ID: 2975338
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Violation of T.C.A. 53-11-451

Text: Gardner’s final argument is that the Task Force violated his due process rights by using drugs seized in one Tennessee county (Davidson) in another Tennessee county (Smith), in violation of T.C.A. § 53-11.451. That statute provides: (d) Property taken or detained under this section shall not be subject to replevin, but is deemed to be in the custody of the director or the director’s authorized representative, agent or employee…, or a sheriff, deputy sheriff, municipal law enforcement officer, or constable, subject only to the orders and decrees of the circuit or criminal court. When property is seized under parts 3 and 4 of this chapter or title 39, chapter 17 part 4, the seizing authority may: … (4) Regardless of any other method of disposition of property contained in this chapter, use the property taken or detained, with permission of the court and under such terms and conditions as are approved by the court, for use in the drug enforcement program of the county in which the goods are seized, and/or, with approval of the court having jurisdiction over the property, sell the property and utilize the proceeds for the drug enforcement program of the county in which the property was seized … . No. 05-6272 United States v. Gardner Page 14 Gardner argues that Tennessee law requires that court permission be obtained to use property seized in one county in a sting operation in another county and that, since court permission was not obtained in his case, his due process rights were violated. Our precedent squarely mandates rejecting this claim. United States v. Pipes, 87 F.3d 840, 843-44 (6th Cir. 1996) (rejecting due-process claim based on alleged violation of T.C.A. § 53-11451). Officers’ use of seized drugs in a reverse sting operation without complying with T.C.A. § 5311-451 does not violate a defendant’s due process rights. Therefore, Gardner’s challenge on this score must be rejected.