HARRY HUGHES, Governor                                         4033

court, poses definite practical and interpretive problems.

The Attorney General has advised me that there is a need to
examine the interplay of Section 551 and other provisions of law
relating to seizure of property because of the interpretive
problems with these statutes which House Bill 618 may raise. A
copy of the opinion of the Attorney General is attached and
should be considered a part of this message.

My action on this bill, after extensive review, primarily
reflects my uneasiness with its possible unintended effects on
the administration of justice. While, as a general proposition,
I share the view that a person acquitted or otherwise relieved of
criminal charges is entitled to have his other property returned
if its possession is not illegal per se, there may be
circumstances where that practice may be totally inappropriate.
The concerns of law enforcement officials as well as the advice
of the Attorney General fortify my view that the matter should be
more fully considered by the General Assembly at the next
session. I am aware of no urgency that would compel me to sign
this bill into law.

For these reasons, I have decided to veto House Bill 618.

Sincerely,
Harry Hughes
Governor

May 24,1984
The Honorable Harry R. Hughes
State House
Annapolis, Maryland 21404

Re: House Bill 618

Dear Governor Hughes:

House Bill 618 would amend Article 27, § 551 and would add a
new § 551A, to require that all property seized by the police,
the possession of which is not illegal per se, be returned
automatically to its owner if a criminal case finally results in
entry of a nolle prosequi, dismissal, or acquittal. Presently
the law permits (but does not require) the automatic return of
property which is neither contraband nor prohibited by law from
being recoverable under those circumstances.

Concern has been expressed on the impact of these changes on
forfeiture provisions elsewhere in Maryland law. Under existing
law, for example, § 551 (b) does not affect "the disposition of
money seized pursuant to gambling violations" under § 264.
Director of Finance, Prince George's County v. Cole, 296 Md. 607,
636 (1983). That result was based, in part, on language in §