Tennessee Senate Bill SB0481

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/29/25
• Engrossed: 4/14/25
• Enrolled: 4/17/25
• Passed: 5/2/25
• Chaptered: 5/13/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 40, Chapter 33, relative to forfeiture.

Summary

SB0481 amends Tennessee’s civil forfeiture laws in Title 40, Chapter 33. The bill removes the requirement in Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-33-205(a) that a person seeking to contest a forfeiture post a “cost bond or” and deletes subsection (b) of § 40-33-206. In practical terms, the measure reduces procedural barriers for people challenging a seizure or forfeiture action. The bill applies only to seizures occurring on or after July 1, 2025. By changing the forfeiture process prospectively, it affects how property owners, law enforcement, and courts handle future forfeiture cases, while leaving prior seizures under existing law. The act is a targeted procedural reform rather than a broad rewrite of forfeiture statutes.

Impact

The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated Title 40, Chapter 33 by eliminating the cost-bond language from the forfeiture contest process and repealing subsection (b) of § 40-33-206. This lowers the upfront financial burden on claimants who seek to challenge a seizure, which may make it easier for property owners to obtain judicial review in civil forfeiture proceedings. The change affects future forfeiture cases involving seized property and the agencies that initiate those actions, as well as courts administering the process.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial in the legislative process. It passed the Senate Judiciary Committee 9-0, the Senate Finance, Ways and Means Committee 11-0, and both floor votes were unanimous or near-unanimous, including final passage by a 95-0 vote in the House. The voting history suggests consensus around the need to adjust forfeiture procedures.

Contention

No committee transcript is available, and the recorded votes show no formal opposition. The only likely point of policy debate, based on the substance of the bill, is whether removing the cost-bond requirement and related language makes it easier for property owners to contest seizures or, conversely, reduces a procedural safeguard that may have been used to deter frivolous claims. However, the available record does not show any identified lawmakers or stakeholder groups actively opposing the measure.