Tennessee § 57-9-103 - Officers to take into possession intoxicating liquors held or transported illegally.

§ 57-9-103. Officers to take into possession intoxicating liquors held or transported illegally.

All sheriffs, deputy sheriffs, and police officers of the state are hereby empowered and required to take into possession any intoxicating liquors, including wine, ale, and beer, which have been received by, or are in possession of, or are being transported by, any person in violation of any law of this state; provided, however, that the reference to “sheriffs, deputy sheriffs, and police officers” in this section also includes “constables” in those counties of this state enumerated in § 57-9-101 . Acts 1919, ch. 50, § 1; Shan. Supp., § 6798a19b1; Code 1932, § 11224; Acts 1969, ch. 160, § 3; 1969, ch. 319, §§ 3, 4; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 57-604. Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 16 Tenn. Juris., Intoxicating Liquors, § 28. NOTES TO DECISIONS 1. Nature of Statute. 2. Type of Proceedings. 3. Effect of Other Statutes. 4. Authority of Sheriff. 5. Jury Question. 1. Nature of Statute. This and the following sections are police measures. Casone v. State, 176 Tenn. 279, 140 S.W.2d 1081, 1939 Tenn. LEXIS 122 (1940). 2. Type of Proceedings. The proceedings under this and the following sections are in rem and the court will retain jurisdiction of the res until it determines the proper disposition to make thereof. Casone v. State, 176 Tenn. 279, 140 S.W.2d 1081, 1939 Tenn. LEXIS 122 (1940). 3. Effect of Other Statutes. Chapter 3 did not repeal in toto the provisions of this and the following sections relating to the seizure and holding of intoxicating liquors by the sheriff or other peace officers as that provision only related to the seizure of liquors or vehicles transporting them in violation of chapter 3 and did not cover the whole grounds covered by this and the following sections. Casone v. State, 176 Tenn. 279, 140 S.W.2d 1081, 1939 Tenn. LEXIS 122 (1940). 4. Authority of Sheriff. Where seizure of intoxicating liquors and truck in which they were contained was under the general authority conferred on the sheriff by this and the following sections and not under the provisions of the revenue statutes of the state, the seizure of the truck was without authority and the court could not direct its holding. Casone v. State, 176 Tenn. 279, 140 S.W.2d 1081, 1939 Tenn. LEXIS 122 (1940). 5. Jury Question. Where the jury evidently did not believe appellant's evidence as to the reason for taking the six gallons of moonshine from the undercover employee's home, there was no error in overruling appellant's motion for acquittal. United States v. Murphy, 471 F.2d 676, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6830 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1972).