1396                                        LAWS OF MARYLAND                             [Ch.

similar provisions providing for seizure
and forfeiture of unlawfully used devices,
equipment, and property. Several wildlife
provisions of Article 66C, allow for
similar disposition. See, e.g., sections
122, 153(d), and 154(d). The intent is to
set forth a uniform seizure and forfeiture
procedure rather than retaining the several
different provisions presently scattered
throughout Article 66C.

Forfeiture is made a discretionary matter
of the court with the use of the word
"may".

Subsection (b) is new language modeled
after an identical provision added by the
Legislative Council to Title 4 to protect
innocent third parties.

Notwithstanding Article 26, section 155 of
the Code which provides that all
forfeitures are remitted to the District
Court system, this provision instead
declares that forfeitures become property
of the department. The District Court
system appears ill-equipped to handle these
forfeited items. The District Court is not
anxious to assume this function and is
content to allow the department to
appropriately dispose of items. To date,
the District Court has not had any such
forfeiture situations to deal with.

The department would like to retain some
forfeited property for departmental use
rather than be compelled to sell it at
public auction, as they are required to do
presently by statute. This proposed
procedure would particularly benefit the
inland enforcement officers whose only
source of funds at present is the State
Fish and Game Protection Fund.

[[10-1107. SEVERABILITY.

IF ANY CLAUSE, SENTENCE, PARAGRAPH, OR SECTION OF
THIS TITLE IS FOR ANY REASON ADJUDGED
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THE JUDGMENT DOES NOT AFFECT OR
INVALIDATE THE REMAINDER BUT IS CONFINED IN ITS
OPERATION TO THE CLAUSE, SENTENCE, PARAGRAPH, OR