Saturday, November 2, 2013

Racism and The Racial Bias of Juries in Criminal Trials


Dealing with Racial Bias in Juries

by Bob Vogel
Trial Attorney
Knoxville, TN
rlvogel@robertvogellaw.com
Graduate, Trial Lawyers College

Imagine being the only dog in a courtroom full of cats. Would you expect to get a fair shake?

_____________________________________________________________________

There, in the audience, as you walk in and take a seat at the defense table, are all the people who might sit on your jury. While they are different ages, different body types, different in hair style, different in gender, they all have one thing in common: they are all white. They sit scattered among the pews of the courtroom. Some in pairs, some in clumps of three or four. Some by themselves. They look serious. They don't smile. They won't look you in the eye. You know they are wondering what you did.

You look over at the next table. There sits the prosecutor. He's about six feet tall, slender and looks like he might work out. He's about fifty, maybe a little older. He wears an off the rack suit that fits him well. He has short, brown hair with a little grey mixed in and brown eyes. He is white. He looks a lot like some of the jurors. He nods toward them from time to time when they catch his eye. They are starting to look at him like he is in charge, like he has power in the courtroom.

Next to him is his assistant. She is tall and attractive. She has on a knee length, black dress, some modest jewelry to compliment her modest haircut and carefully applied makeup. She is pretty, but she has a stern look on her face today: her lips are pinched together and there are some age wrinkles showing around the corner of her mouth and around her narrowed eyes. When she looks at you, her face is hard, without expression. She knows what you did. At least, she thinks she does. But, when she turns toward the jury, she smiles a brilliant, engaging smile. All of the pictures and documents that they prosecutor is going to use to put you in jail sit in neat piles in front of her, ready to be passed to her boss at just the right time in the trial.

Your attorney walks in and sits down next to you. You've met with him a lot. He knows the whole story of your case. He knows you didn't do it - that you maintain your innocence. He's talked to the prosecutor about the case. He's shown you their evidence. The prosecutor wants you to plead to the charge with a minimum amount of jail time, but consecutive to what you're serving now. It will add about a year to your time.

You rejected that offer, because you know you didn't do it. You caught the look on your attorney's face when you did that. And it made you worry a little. Still, you have confidence in him. He wore a good suit, today. He has all his papers ready. He has an assistant with him, too, but she looks a little nervous. He has a nice face and he smiles at you as he sits down. But, still, you notice, he has the same kind of face that the jury and the prosecutor have - all white.

You look around the courtroom. You see several men and women in uniform. Some nod at you. Some look around the courtroom and won't catch your eye. There is a woman fussing with a computer and some flat, table top microphones: the court reporter. She seems preoccupied. Next to the judges bench, the clerk sits in front of a computer terminal. She is typing and looking at documents. They are trying to get some paperwork done before your trial starts. Trials take a long time and interfere with paperwork.

The Judge walks out. "All rise," one of the officers says. "Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye, the Criminal Court for this county is now in session, all those with business before this Court approach and ye shall be heard. God save this honorable Court, the State of here we are and the United States of America." Then he leads everyone in the pledge of allegiance. You glance at your attorney, and you follow his lead, placing your hand on your heart and reciting the pledge. You're maybe a quarter of a beat behind because you haven't had to recite it since your were in grade school. You hope nobody else notices. They all seem to know it perfectly.

Your case is called. The Judge brings a group of people forward and sits them in the jury box. He asks them a bunch of questions and tells them a bunch of stuff. They stare back at him with blank faces. They nod when it seems appropriate. The smile at his jokes even though you don't understand them and you think they probably don't either. But, he is the judge.

Your attorney nods and makes some notes on a pad of paper. You see his assistant doing the same. Across the room, the prosecutor and his helper make notes and are looking at a list of names.

The judge turns the jury over to the attorneys. First, the prosecutor goes. He talks about gangs and gang violence, like you created it, and hopes the jury won't be offended by it. He talks about the fact that the crime happened in prison, but that the jury shouldn't think about that. They are all looking at you like they would look at their shoe after stepping in dog poop. You're starting to wonder why you didn't take the deal.

"Good morning," your attorney, Bob says, "I've been worried about something ever since I learned about this case. After listening to the prosecutor, whose job it is to put Mr. Smith away for as long as he possibly can, I'm just downright scared. I've got a knot in my stomach.

"Take a look at this," Bob says. He walks over to his computer and hits a couple of buttons. A cartoon pops up on the overhead.


"Anybody here want to trade places with Fido?" Bob says. You notice the prosecutor starting to stand up. But, then he decides against it.

"I wonder what it would be like to be in Fido's place? How do you think it would feel? Mr. A? How do you think it would feel to be in Fido's spot?"

Mr. A is not sure how to respond. He shrugs his shoulders, "not too good, I guess."

"I think you're right, Mr. A, not too good. Play along with me, why wouldn't it feel too good?"

"He ain't gonna get too good a deal from them cats," Mr. A says.

"No, he's not, is he?"

"Uhn, uh," Mr. A, says.

You notice that some of the jurors are smiling a little at the cartoon. Bob moves onto someone else.

"Ms. C, I notice you smiling, share with us if you would?"

"It's just funny. I mean, cat's hate dogs, but, I mean, just seeing the animals acting like people, you know, that's funny. But, I kinda feel sorry for the dog."

"Yeah, me too, why do you feel bad for the dog?"

"Well, there's just no way he'll get a fair trial," she says.

"Tell me why you feel that way," Bob says.

"Well..." Ms. C stops. She can't seem to put her thoughts into words.

You notice that an older lady down on the front row is sitting straight up in her seat, trying to get Bob's attention.

"Ms. C, do you want to think about if for a second? I notice Ms. D here really wants to say something?"

"Sure." She is obviously relieved. She looks over at Ms. D. In fact, you notice all the jurors are looking at her, so is the judge and so is the prosecutor and his helper. There are extra jurors behind them in the pews. They are all listening, too.

"Ms. D?" Bob says, motioning toward her, "what are your feelings about this?"

"Well, I get what you're trying to do. I mean, I guess its easier to talk about cats and dogs than people. But, I think I'm a little offended that you feel like we won't be fair with your client, like we'd treat him like a bunch of cats would treat a dog if they got a chance. I'm not too happy about that."

You see the prosecutor smile to himself and look at his assistant. They share a meaningful glance and you see her make a mark on the paper.

"Thank you for sharing, Ms. D," Bob says, as he takes a tiny step forward in her direction. "I'm really glad you shared that with me. So, do you feel that I've misjudged you?"

"Yes. I think you've underestimated us."

"How so?"

"Well, you don't give us enough credit. I mean, I know your client is black. But that doesn't mean I can't be fair to him. Does it?"

"Of course not, and I am so happy to hear you say that. I'm so glad you called me out on this. You are definitely the kind of person I want on this jury. I'm hoping you want to be here?"

"Well, yes," Ms. D says, with a smile of pride on her face.

"Thank you, I'm glad. You know, the reason I brought this up is because I worry about this in me. I worry that there are some racist thoughts deep down inside me," Bob says.

You start to squirm a little. Your lawyer is a racist? Is that what he's saying. You really should have taken that deal. You look over at the prosecutor to see if you connect with him. Maybe he'll give you a break.

The prosecutor is staring at Bob. He seems unsure. He has one eyebrow raised in a question mark.

"I grew up in a small suburban town in New Jersey," Bob continues, "there were two black families in town. One father was the mayor and an Harvard educated college professor. The other was a successful business man - an engineer. Their kids were in high school with me. Aside from the color of their skin, they were just like me. They dressed like me. They acted like me. They took the same classes and had the same interests as me. No difference. We didn't really notice the color of their skin. Although, growing up in the seventies, there was no interracial dating. So, while we all socialized and did things together, they never had dates with our peers.

"Anyway, I lived about 15 miles from Newark and about 25 miles from Harlem and the Bronx. In the sixties and early seventies, there were a bunch of riots there. People burned down buildings. Most of our fathers were blue collar businessmen who owned their own businesses and worked hard in their own businesses. I remember the talk about "them and they". If they come here, if they march here, we'll be ready.

"By "ready," that meant that everyone had a loaded shotgun near an upstairs window. Our fathers were ready to barricade the streets leading into town and put up defenses. "They" were not going to burn down our houses or loot our stores. We weren't going to let them get bused in here, either.

"As I got older, there were always news stories about them. About how heroin was rampaging through the ghetto. How they were stealing, committing crimes, stabbing each other, shooting each other, overdosing, it was like a war. In the eighties it was cocaine and in the nineties it was crack. They committed car jackings, rapes, murder. Newark was the car jacking capital of the world. The Newark police told white people from the suburbs not to stop at stop lights or stop signs after dark.

"It was always them. Always the black drug addicts and dealers. It was the black guy with the knife or the gun or the dope. It was the black guy who murdered and raped. Then came the gangs. In the 90s the gangs started to grow and rage through the streets of Newark and New York. They went "wilding". They tore up stores, ripped people off, mugged people, raped women joggers and beat them to death or into a coma. They dealt in crack cocaine. They were evil. They were crazy.

"I know that "them" is not a real group. I get that. I know that people are individuals. But still, deep down in here, down in places I try to hide, in places I don't like to go, I'm scared of them."

Bob stops and looks over at you.

"I'm scared of him, of my client, of Mr. Smith," Bob says. "I'll bet Mr. Smith isn't too happy to hear that, are you?"

"No, sir," you say, but you have a whole lot of other words on your mind. Your emotions cry out clearly through your tone and there is nervous laughter from the jury. The prosecutor starts to his feet again. Bob waves him down, as if to say he won't ask you any more questions. The prosecutor sits down, ready to object if he needs to.

"I'm scared, deep down in my heart, of black criminals, black men who deal drugs, who are in gangs. I'm scared of Mr. Smith. And, as his attorney, I'm scared some of you might feel that way, too. Does anyone feel like I do?"

Inside, you start to relax. You see where he's going. You see a few of the jurors nodding. Ms. D is almost in tears. Mr. A is leaning forward. They're getting ready to talk about this. You can tell. They're interested. You look over and see the frustrated face of the prosecutor. He realized too late where this was going.

The discussion proceeds and the jurors talk through the feelings of fear about people who are different. About black men in prison. About black drug dealers. Black street gangs and gang violence in prison. They start to help Bob feel better about the case. They start to suggest how a juror ought to act, what he ought to think about. They start to talk about you as a person, about how you could be different. They talk about how they feel.

Once they finish the racial topic, they move through some other discussions. The jury is wound up. They are talking. Sometimes, they are talking to each other. Sometimes, with Bob. And, they have all stopped raising their hands or looking scared. They've come together, just like Bob told you they would.

"If you trust them to," he said, "the jury will save you."

"The jury will give you justice."

____________________________________________________________________

We have to acknowledge what is already there. People are scared to talk about racism. It's politically incorrect. But, when I have a client who is a black man alleged to be a member of a gang, violent or a drug dealer, maybe even someone who has been in prison, it is imperative to get the jury talking about what lurks deep down inside of all of us: our fear of "them." 

Gang violence, drugs, guns, and all that are primarily associated with black men and Hispanic men. We are doing our client's a disservice when we ignore the obvious. Our juror's see this every day on television - whether it is in the news or a stereotypical character in a movie or TV drama.

In the end, if you get your jury to talk with you about it, they will begin to realize that they can see your client as a person, as a human being. They will talk about him individually and distinguish him from the group of "them" that scares all of us.

If you ignore this, you do so at the peril of your client. This is his only shot. How can you be sure he has a fair jury if you don't uncover this bit of poison. If you don't it can kill your case. You must extract it, isolate it, neutralize it. You must slice open that snake bite and suck that poison out. There are many ways to approach this, I've just walked through one. It works, but there are other ways. Find what works for you.

And, most of all - trust your jury to be people. Be your real feelings to them - trust them with that - trust them with you fears and concerns about the trial. They will trust you and they will talk with you about it - and, they will be their real feelings to you.  What more could you ask of any juror?

It is for good for your client to think about these things. It is important to the cause of justice. It is an imperative in order to obtain a fair trial. Your fears are the same ones the jurors will feel. Share with them and they will help you overcome them and show you how to deal with them.

Feel free to contact me to discuss this and other trial issues more.

Bob Vogel
Trial Attorney
Knoxville, TN
rlvogel@robertvogellaw.com
865-357-1949



Go Vols!

Just want to send out an encouraging word to the team - We are all behind you and know you can win. You guys have shown such great improvement already this year. You have a lot to be proud of.

Go Vols!

Bob Vogel
Class of 83

How 'bout them Vols!


Friday, November 1, 2013

Asset Forfeiture in Tennessee - What you need to know about how they can take your stuff?

Asset forfeiture is a big business in Tennessee.

by Bob Vogel, Attorney
The Vogel Law Firm
Knoxville, TN
rlvogel@robertvogellaw.com
865-357-4315


It's easy revenue for the county and the state. And, it's easy for them to do. All of the laws are set up to favor the State. There is no public trial. There is no public hearing. There is no jury. You have to hire your own lawyer. The State gets their own lawyer.

You then get to go to a hearing in some basement in some building that is not a courthouse. You talk to the State's attorney and the officer who took your stuff, like they'll ever say they were wrong. They want to make a deal with you. They want you to agree to let them keep your stuff. Or, they want you to agree to pay for it, or, if it's cash, split it with them. Bottom line, they want your stuff.

If you did this, by the way, you would go to jail for theft.

Or, you can have a hearing. An administrative law judge, not an elected one, but one appointed by the State, will hear your argument against the State. You have to prove that they don't have probable cause to keep your stuff. Otherwise, they keep your stuff.

Oh, and you have to post a $350 bond in order to even get a hearing. Unless you are indigent in which case they mostly don't believe you and make you post the bond, anyway. The same people who took your stuff get to decide if you have to post a bond.

Has this started to make you angry yet?

How can they do that? The legislature said they could.

Is it constitutional? I don't think so. I think it is a flaming violation of your rights under both the State and Federal Constitution. Unfortunately, so far, the Tennessee Supreme Court doesn't agree with me. You see, this action generally applies to people who society thinks of as criminals. So, it's okay to violate criminal's rights, isn't it? I believe it is a violation of your right to a trial and a violation of your due process rights.

Do you have to be convicted first? No. Surprisingly, simply being arrested or simply having an office believe there is probable cause you did something wrong can permit them to take your car.

So, how does it work?  They can take your car, your property and your money if you committing a crime or, if the police officer has probable cause to believe you are committing a crime.

What crimes?

Any of the following activities subject you to possible forfeiture of your car or other assets:

  1. Stuff you use to commit arson (burning down something you shouldn't burn down);
  2. Violation of someone's personal rights as regulated by trade practices (you put Smokey's picture on a bunch of T shirts and sell them without permission);
  3. Drugs - pretty much any crime related to drugs - possession, sale, delivery, manufacture - and that can be prescription drugs as well as meth;
  4. Driving after you lost your license for a DUI;
  5. they can take alcohol sold by an unlicensed dealer;
  6. they can take untaxed alcohol;
  7. they can take untaxed tobacco products;
  8. they can take your car and equipment for storing or transporting illegally captured game, specifically, bear and deer.
What is the procedure? If the seizing officer has probable cause to believe you used your car, for example, in the commission of a drug crime, then he can seize your car. Then, he has to take a warrant to a judge showing probable cause to seize your stuff. He has to provide an affidavit with the warrant. If the judge signs the warrant, then they have your stuff. They then tell you about a hearing. If you don't respond, they keep your stuff. If you go and lose, they keep your stuff. If you appeal and lose, they keep your stuff. See how it works, they keep your stuff.

What if I owe money on the car, or boat etc.? You still owe the money. The lender can make a claim against the asset, but if you don't and the lender doesn't, you still owe. You still have to make your payments. I had a client whose car was seized and he made payments for over a year before he got it back.

What can I do? Get a lawyer - they have one. If you want your asset back, then you have to either fight for it or buy it back.

What can I do to fix this horrible law? Write to your State representatives and get all of your friends and family to do it. Tell them you won't vote for them unless they fix this unconstitutional crap.



Here's some more information from the State website and from the code.

Contact me if you have questions or have had an asset seized by the State - don't take too long - time is your enemy here.

Bob Vogel
rlvogel@robertvogellaw.com
865-357-1949
www.robertvogellaw.com

Asset Forfeiture Division of the State of Tennessee

Asset Forfeiture Statute: T.C.A. 40-33-201 et seq.
Local agencies responsible for direct law enforcement seize property consisting of vehicles, money, real property, and other miscellaneous property. The agency then sends the paperwork to the Legal Division to process as jurisdiction has been given to the Commissioner of Safety for the disposition of this property.  Property may be seized for possession of narcotics, illegal or prescription.  Vehicles may be seized for driving on a driver’s license which has been revoked for driving under the influence and for driving under the influence for a second or subsequent time.  Both DUI charges must have occurred within five years of each other.
The Notice of Seizure and Forfeiture of Conveyances form is completed by the Officer at the time the property is seized.  He gives this to the person in possession of the property being seized as a receipt to show that the property is, in fact, being seized.  He is then responsible for taking this Notice of Seizure and a completed Forfeiture Warrant to a local Judge to show probable cause for the seizure.  If the Judge finds probable cause for the seizure, he signs the Warrant.
Once the Warrant is signed, the Notice of Seizure form and the signed Warrant are submitted to the Legal Division.  Notice that a Forfeiture Warrant has been signed is sent by certified mail to anyone reasonably located who may have an interest in this property.  They are responsible for filing a petition requesting a hearing within thirty (30) days of receiving the letter and signing the certified mail receipt.
Once a petition is filed, the case is set for hearing to determine the disposition of the property.  Notice of the hearing date is sent to all parties who have filed a petition about thirty (30) days before the hearing is set.  This hearing will be presided over by an Administrative Law Judge out of the Secretary of State Administrative Procedures Division.  The State has prosecuting attorneys for these hearings.  Claimants may hire their own defense attorney, at their expense, or may choose to represent themselves.
If a lien holder is listed on the title of a seized vehicle and a claim is filed by this lien holder only, there is not a hearing set.  The State’s Attorney will review the case and verify the lien.  An Order will be then be issued forfeiting the property to the seizing agency subject to the lien.  This allows the vehicle to be returned to the lien holder to satisfy the lien, or for the Agency which seized the vehicle to keep the vehicle and pay the lien holder their respective lien (being the lien at time of seizure less any payments made).
On the hearing date, the State’s Prosecuting Attorney and the Officer who seized the property will first try to negotiate an out of court settlement for the case with the claimants.  If no settlement can be reached or if all parties are not present, the case will be continued to a new hearing date, probably about three months in the future.  If a settlement is reached, the State’s Attorney will prepare a Proposed Civil Settlement Form.  The parties will all sign showing agreement with the settlement, and an Order will be prepared in accordance with the civil settlement agreement.
At a second date, if no settlement can be reached and all parties are present, the case will proceed to a hearing before the Administrative Law Judge.  The Judge will normally take a case under advisement and render his decision at a later date, usually in sixty (60) to ninety (90) days.  It is possible that a case may be continued for cause by agreement at any stage of the hearing; however, most continuances will require a motion to continue and a determination by the Administrative Law Judge.
The Judge’s ruling is normally for the property to be sold at public auction, put into service, or returned to the claimant.  Public auctions are the responsibility of the law enforcement agency that seized the vehicle.
If either party chooses to appeal an adverse decision of the Judge, they may do so by filing an initial appeal with the Commissioner of Safety in Nashville.
Further appeals may be had by moving the case into the Chancery Court of Davidson County, in Nashville, only.

40-33-201.  Application.
  All personal property, including conveyances, subject to forfeiture under § 39-14-307, § 47-25-1105, § 53-11-451, § 55-50-504(h), § 55-10-414, § 57-3-411, § 57-5-409, § 57-9-201, § 67-4-1020 or § 70-6-202, shall be seized and forfeited in accordance with the procedure set out in this part.

Warrant Requirement:

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-33-204  (2013)
First of 2 versions of this section

40-33-204.  Forfeiture warrant.  [Effective until January 1, 2014. See the version effective on January 1, 2014.]

  (a) Once personal property is seized pursuant to an applicable provision of law, no forfeiture action shall proceed unless a forfeiture warrant is issued in accordance with this section by a general sessions, circuit, criminal court or popularly elected city judge. The forfeiture warrant shall authorize the institution of a forfeiture proceeding under this part. As used in this subsection (a), "popularly elected city judge" means a licensed attorney who is elected to the office of city judge pursuant to title 16, chapter 18, part 2.

(b) The officer making the seizure shall apply for a forfeiture warrant by filing a sworn affidavit within five (5) working days following the property seizure. The forfeiture warrant shall be based upon proof by affidavit and shall have attached to it a copy of the notice of seizure. The hearing on the application for a forfeiture warrant shall be ex parte and shall be recorded. It is the duty of the court to maintain the recording. Certified copies of the proceeding shall be made available to any party requesting them, and the same shall be admissible as evidence. The affidavit in support of a forfeiture warrant shall be sworn to and state the following:

   (1) The legal and factual basis making the property subject to forfeiture;

   (2) If the owner or co-owner of the property was not the person in possession of the property at the time of seizure and can be determined from public records of titles, registrations or other recorded documents, the affidavit shall state with particular specificity the officer's probable cause for believing that the owner or co-owner of the property knew that the property was of a nature making its possession illegal or was being used in a manner making it subject to forfeiture as well as the legal, and factual basis for forfeiture of the interest; and

   (3) If the interest of a secured party with a duly perfected security interest as reflected in the public records of titles, registrations or other recorded documents, is sought to be forfeited, the affidavit shall state with particular specificity the officer's probable cause that the secured party's interest in the property is nevertheless subject to forfeiture as well as the legal and factual basis for forfeiture of the interest.

(c)  (1) The judge shall issue the forfeiture warrant if the judge finds that the offered proof establishes probable cause to believe that:

      (A) The property is subject to forfeiture; and

      (B) If the property is owned by one whose interest is described in public records of titles, registrations or other recorded documents, that the owner's interest is subject to forfeiture under the applicable provision of law.

   (2) If the seizing officer asserts to the judge that the officer was unable to determine the owner of the seized property or whether the owner's interest is subject to forfeiture within the required five-day period, the judge may grant up to ten (10) additional days to seek a forfeiture warrant if the judge finds that the seizing officer has:

      (A) Exercised due diligence and good faith in attempting to determine the owner of the property or whether the owner's interest is subject to forfeiture; and

      (B) Made a factual showing that because of the existence of extraordinary and unusual circumstances an exception to the five-day forfeiture warrant requirement is justified.

   (3) General sessions judges may authorize magistrates or judicial commissioners to issue forfeiture warrants. Prior to the authorization, the judges shall train and certify that the magistrates or judicial commissioners understand the procedure and requirements relative to the issuance of a forfeiture warrant.

(d) If the person in possession of the property is not the registered owner as determined from public records of titles, registrations or other recorded documents, the judge may consider other indicia of ownership that proves that the possessor is nonetheless an owner of the property. Other indicia of ownership shall include, but is not limited to, the following:

   (1) How the parties involved regarded ownership of the property in question;

   (2) The intentions of the parties relative to ownership of the property;

   (3) Who was responsible for originally purchasing the property;

   (4) Who pays any insurance, license or fees required to possess or operate the property;

   (5) Who maintains and repairs the property;

   (6) Who uses or operates the property;

   (7) Who has access to use of the property; and

   (8) Who acts as if they have a proprietary interest in the property.

(e) If the owner or co-owner of the property was not the person in possession of the property at the time of the seizure and can be determined from public records of titles, registrations or other recorded documents, the judge shall put the seizing officer under oath and ask the following questions:

   (1) What is the officer's probable cause that the owner or co-owner of the property knew that the property was of a nature making its possession illegal or was being used in a manner making it subject to forfeiture;

   (2) What is the officer's probable cause that the co-owner or co-owners who are not in possession of the property at the time it was seized were co-conspirators to the activity making the property subject to forfeiture; and

   (3) Any other questions necessary to determine the legal and factual basis for forfeiture.

(f) If a secured party's interest is sought to be forfeited, the judge shall put the seizing officer under oath and ask the following questions:

   (1) What is the officer's probable cause that the secured party is a co-conspirator to the activity making the property subject to forfeiture;

   (2) Did the secured party at the time the interest attached, have actual knowledge of the intended illegal use of the property; and

   (3) Any other question deemed necessary to determine the legal and factual basis for forfeiture of the secured party's interest.

(g) Upon issuance of the forfeiture warrant, the judge shall retain the affidavit relied upon in support of the warrant and the officer shall, within seven (7) working days, send the warrant, a copy of the affidavit and the notice of seizure to the applicable agency. By signing and issuing the forfeiture warrant, the judge is affirming that the required finding of probable cause necessary to issue the warrant has been made. Upon receipt of the documents, the applicable agency shall notify any other owner, as may be determined from public records of titles, registrations or other recorded documents, or secured party that a forfeiture warrant has been issued. Upon receipt of the notice of seizure and forfeiture warrant and after interviewing any witnesses, the applicable agency shall release the property if there is no legal and factual basis for forfeiture. The seizing agency shall maintain a copy of the notice of seizure for all property seized at its main office and the notices and receipts shall be public records.

(h) If no forfeiture warrant is issued, and the property is not needed for evidence in a criminal proceeding, the seizing agency shall immediately return the property to the owner, as determined from public records of titles, registrations or other recorded documents, or if the owner cannot be determined, to the person in possession of the property at the time of seizure.

(i) Upon the request of any general sessions, circuit, criminal court or popularly elected city judge, the administrative office of the courts shall provide a cassette tape recorder for the purpose of recording the hearing on the application for a forfeiture warrant. As used in this subsection (i), "popularly elected city judge" means a licensed attorney who is elected to the office of city judge pursuant to title 16, chapter 18, part 2.

Driving on suspended, revoked license due to DUI conviction

55-50-504(h)  (1) The vehicle used in the commission of a person's violation of § 55-50-504, when the original suspension or revocation was made for a violation of § 55-10-401, or a statute in another state prohibiting driving under the influence of an intoxicant, is subject to seizure and forfeiture in accordance with the procedure established in title 40, chapter 33, part 2. The department is designated as the applicable agency, as defined by § 40-33-202, for all forfeitures authorized by this subsection (h).

   (2) For purposes of clarifying this subsection (h) and consistent with the overall remedial purpose of the asset forfeiture procedure, a vehicle is subject to seizure and forfeiture upon the arrest or citation of a person for driving while the person's driving privileges are cancelled, suspended or revoked. A conviction for the criminal offense of driving while the person's driving privileges are cancelled, suspended or revoked is not required.