Attempted Murder Charge Moves Forward Against Memphis Repossessor

Scene Photo Raises Questions About Company Behind the Recovery

Memphis, TN – August 7, 2026 – A repossession agent accused of severely beating a vehicle owner with a metal jack handle during a June repossession has been bound over to a Shelby County grand jury on an attempted second-degree murder charge.

Taylor Douget is accused of attacking the owner of a repossessed vehicle during a June 12 confrontation in Memphis. Following a preliminary hearing, a judge found probable cause for the case to proceed, according to the Shelby County District Attorney’s Office.

Douget’s bond reportedly remains set at $250,000.

The charge is an allegation, and Douget is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

A Repossession Turns Violent

The confrontation reportedly began after Douget repossessed a 2002 Chevrolet Tahoe.

Attempted Murder Charge Moves Forward Against Memphis Repossessor — Taylor Douget

According to earlier reporting based upon arrest documents, Douget stopped near Hewlett Road and Horn Lake Road to put air in the vehicle’s tires when the vehicle owner caught up with him.

An argument followed.

Prosecutors allege Douget became angry and repeatedly shouted racial slurs at the vehicle owner before the confrontation became physical.

Police allege Douget punched the man in the face and struck him in the head with a metal object identified in earlier reports as the arm of a two-ton jack.

The victim reportedly lost consciousness at the scene and was transported to Regional One Hospital. According to police, he suffered two fractured cervical vertebrae and multiple head injuries.

Douget reportedly acknowledged to investigators that he armed himself with the metal object but denied striking the victim with it.

The Photograph

A photograph taken during the confrontation provides another piece of information that was not apparent in the original reporting.

The image, posted by News Channel 3 WREG, shows Douget standing beside the wheel-lift tow truck being used during the repossession while holding what appears to be a long metal object.

Also, clearly visible on the side of the truck are two federal motor-carrier identification numbers:

USDOT 2162973
MC 916666

A search of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration records identifies both numbers as belonging to Tri-State Towing and Recovery LLC of Memphis.

FMCSA records list Tri-State at:

5170 S. Third Street
Memphis, Tennessee 38109

The carrier is currently listed as active and reports three power units and three drivers. This company has no known website and only shows a listing in a well-known repossession directory not on CURepossession.

The photograph establishes that the truck present during the confrontation was displaying federal motor-carrier numbers assigned to Tri-State Towing and Recovery.

It does not, however, establish Douget’s employment relationship with Tri-State.

Another Business at the Same Address

The South Third Street address produces another noteworthy connection.

CK Auto Sales LLC, a used-car dealership that offers vehicle financing, also operates from 5170 S. Third Street.

CK Auto Sales has acknowledged in a publicly available consumer complaint responses that vehicles it finances may be repossessed following default and subsequently sold when borrowers fail to redeem them.

That makes the shared location noteworthy within the context of the repossession business, but its significance remains unknown.

No evidence reviewed by CURepossession establishes common ownership between CK Auto Sales and Tri-State Towing and Recovery.

More importantly, there is currently no evidence that CK Auto Sales financed the Chevrolet Tahoe involved in this incident, ordered its repossession or otherwise had any involvement in the June 12 recovery.

There are numerous used car dealers on this street. Any of which could have made this assignment.

The businesses’ shared address is therefore just that, a documented connection that raises questions but does not provide the answers.

Then There Is Memphis Towing & Recovery

Adding another layer of uncertainty is the company identified in accounts of the arrest.

News reports citing the arrest documents identified Douget as driving for Memphis Towing & Recovery at the time of the incident. Other reporting states that the victim identified the repossession driver as being with Memphis Towing & Recovery.

That creates an apparent discrepancy with the photograph.

The truck photographed at the scene does not display Memphis Towing & Recovery’s federal carrier identification. Instead, it clearly displays USDOT 2162973 and MC 916666,numbers assigned to Tri-State Towing and Recovery.

Memphis Towing & Recovery has a website that offers standard roadside service and makes no mention of offering repossession services or affiliations with the repossession industry.

CURepossession has not found documentation establishing the nature of Douget’s relationship with either company.

There are several possible explanations. One company could have subcontracted the repossession to another. Douget could have been operating equipment belonging to or registered under another company. Or, the tow truck was previosuly owned by and sold by Tri-State Towing and Recovery or another party who failed to remove the identifying numbers.

He could have had relationships with both businesses. The company identification contained in the arrest information could also have been incomplete or incorrect.

There may be other explanations, but at this point, there is insufficient evidence to determine which is correct.

What the available evidence does establish is an unusual contradiction:

Arrest-related reporting identifies Memphis Towing & Recovery.

The truck photographed during the repossession displays federal numbers belonging to Tri-State Towing and Recovery.

And Tri-State operates from the same address as a used-car dealership engaged in vehicle financing and repossession.

None of those facts establishes who assigned this particular repossession or Douget’s employment status.

But together, they leave an important question unanswered:

Who was actually performing, and responsible for the repossession that ended with an attempted murder charge?