'COERCED' CONTRIBUTION RETURNED

Loudon County Sheriff's Office Gives Man Back $10,000, Pays Legal Fees

The Loudon County Sheriff's Office has returned nearly $10,000 and
paid the legal fees of a man who said he was pressured into making a
"contribution" to the county's law-enforcement drug fund by deputies
who stopped him last year.

The Sheriff's Office never filed an answer to a Loudon County Circuit
Court lawsuit filed in June by Eddie W. Witt of Soddy-Daisy, Tenn.

Early this week, Witt agreed to dismiss the lawsuit after all of his
money was returned and his attorney fees were paid.

"Essentially, that money was extorted from Mr. Witt," said Witt's
lawyer, Jes Beard of Chattanooga.

Defendants in the lawsuit were Sheriff Tim Guider, Chief Deputy Tony
Aikens, and deputies Sam Johnson and Paul E. Curtis.

Guider "did not have, to our knowledge, any direct involvement, but it
is difficult to believe that roughly $10,000 could show up in the drug
fund without some considerable explanation for it," Beard said.

It was never alleged that the money was taken to be converted to
anyone's personal use, but that is not the point, Beard said.

"The relevant issue is not if it was to be used for bona fide law
enforcement, _but were they improperly coercing a defendant to give
money to the sheriff's office when he had no desire, no legitimate
reason and no pre-existing inclination to do so," he said.

Beard said he asked TBI to investigate, but "they said that because
the county was able to verify and produce receipts proving the money
did go into the drug fund, there was nothing TBI could do. Had it gone
into someone's pocket, presumably TBI would have acted."

However, the money kept by the Sheriff's Office included a $500 bill
that had been in Witt's family for some time, and as a collector's
item was worth more than its face value, the lawsuit stated.

In a letter to Loudon County Attorney Harvey Sproul proposing
settlement terms, Beard stated that Curtis had put another $500 into
the "contribution" fund and taken that $500 bill out.

As part of the settlement agreement, Curtis signed a receipt for a
$500 check in exchange for return of the specific $500 bill described
as "part of the 'contribution' made by Eddie W. Witt to the Loudon
County Sheriff's Department Drug Fund

The events began June 20, 2002, when Curtis stopped Witt on Interstate
75 and cited him for driving on a suspended license. A search of his
car turned up a bank bag containing $19,649.25, according to the lawsuit.

Witt had been to Kentucky, and the money was a gift from his
terminally ill father, Beard said.

Aikens said the car was searched after a drug dog "alerted" on the
vehicle.

"No drugs were found," Aikens said, but in addition to the money,
there was a loaded handgun for which Witt had no carry permit, and
Witt was charged with carrying a weapon.

"We asked him if anyone could verify that" he got the money from his
father. Witt said a family member "knew it but wouldn't tell the truth
about it. So we didn't know where the money came from.

"He was told by the officers that the money" was subject to being
"seized because the drug dog did alert on the car. He came into the
sheriff's office the next day and wanted to know what procedures he
needed to get his money back. He approached us" about a settlement,
"we did not approach him."

Aikens said Witt was advised of the state's seizure laws, by which
money or property suspected of being connected to the drug trade can
be seized and held by a law-enforcement agency pending a Tennessee
Department of Safety hearing. Witt also was advised that such issues
can be settled between the parties, also subject to Department of
Safety approval, Aikens said.

Witt agreed to settle by accepting $10,000 of the money and leaving
the balance to the drug fund, signed the necessary forms, but then
sued to get the money back, Aikens said.

But Beard said Witt "was given no meaningful option" of getting any of
the money back other than by "donating" nearly half of it to the drug
fund, which is used to finance police anti-drug drug actions.

Aikens said after the lawsuit was filed that he did not send the terms
of the settlement in to the Department of Safety.

"I believe it would have been approved, but we would still be back in
the same situation with the lawsuit," he said. "It just was not worth
it, to the sheriff's office or the county. The simplest thing to do
was to give the guy his money back."

"Hindsight is always 20-20," Aikens added. "Did the officers make bad
judgment? Bad judgment, maybe, but nothing against the law. We treated
this case no differently than many others that we do, and I assume"
that many other law enforcement agencies do.