Tennessee Senate Bill SB0493

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/29/25

Caption

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

Summary

SB0493 amends Tennessee’s civil forfeiture law by raising the evidentiary standard the state must meet in certain forfeiture proceedings. Under current law, the state must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence; this bill changes that standard to clear and convincing evidence in Tennessee Code Annotated sections 40-33-210(a) and 40-33-213(a). The bill applies to seizures occurring on or after July 1, 2025. In practical terms, the bill makes it harder for the state to permanently take property through civil forfeiture by requiring stronger proof before forfeiture can be ordered. It does not eliminate civil forfeiture, but it increases the burden on the government in cases involving seized property connected to alleged criminal activity.

Impact

The bill directly amends Title 40, Chapter 33 of the Tennessee Code, which governs civil forfeiture procedures. By replacing the “preponderance of evidence” standard with “clear and convincing evidence,” it changes the proof threshold in forfeiture cases and likely affects law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, property owners, and courts handling seizure and forfeiture actions. The change applies prospectively only to seizures on or after July 1, 2025.

Sentiment

The available record does not include committee debate or vote totals, so there is no direct transcript evidence of support or opposition. Based on the bill’s subject matter, the measure appears to reflect a reform-oriented approach to civil forfeiture, generally favoring stronger protections for property owners and greater limits on government seizure authority. No recorded votes or discussion snippets are available to indicate broader legislative sentiment.

Contention

The main point of contention in bills of this type is the balance between law enforcement’s ability to seize property tied to criminal conduct and property owners’ due process rights. Supporters typically argue that a higher evidentiary standard reduces the risk of wrongful forfeiture and protects innocent owners, while opponents may argue that it makes forfeiture harder to use as a tool against crime and could reduce its deterrent effect. Because no committee transcript is provided, the specific positions of legislators or stakeholders are not documented here.