HARRY HUGHES, Governor                                     4035

Article 27 contains several:

1.  § 264 - gambling (currency, cash, money).

2.  § 297 - controlled dangerous substances (controlled
substances, raw materials, containers, conveyances, books,
records, research, money, currency, drug paraphernalia).

3.  § 297A provides for the photographing of money and its
immediate deposit.

4.  § 36 C - handguns.

Article 33, § 24-25 contains another forfeiture provision
concerning money used to bet on election results.

As you know, however, from the correspondence you have
received on House Bill 618, some of those sections presently
allow forfeiture even if a criminal case results in an acquittal
and prosecutors are fearful that House Bill 618 would affect
those provisions. The first problem is to determine what items
are not "illegal per se" to possess. Clearly the controlled
substances are contraband and will not be returned. The
conveyances and money, however, are mere instrumentalities of
crime and not commonly thought of as illegal, unless they become
contraband under the forfeiture statutes. Similarly, stolen
goods are fruits of crime and, although not illegal per se, would
presumably be returned to the true owner and not to the former
defendant. Thus, if § 551(b) does apply to the forfeiture
provisions, a major change would be effected.

It has been suggested that the sponsor's intent was to
overrule the result in Office of Finance, Balto. Co. v. Previti,
296 Md. 512 (1983), which held that a criminal conviction was not
a prerequisite for forfeiture of money seized in connection with
gambling charges. If applicable, it appears to have that impact.
A related situation, however, is not affected. In Bozman v.
Office of Finance, Balto. Co., 296 Md. 492 (1983), the court held
that it was not necessary to bring a criminal prosecution prior
to forfeiture of money seized in connection with controlled
dangerous substances. The amendments in House Bill 618 would not
affect that situation because subsection (b) is only triggered by
the final result in the criminal case. 1/

We should point out that this bill amends a portion of §
551, a statute which generally deals with the issuance of search
warrants. It was recently analyzed by Judge Charles Moylan for
the Court of Special Appeals in an exhaustive opinion, In re
Special Investigation No. 228, 54 Md. App. 149, cert, denied,
296 Md. 414 (1983). That case dealt primarily with subsection
(a) of § 551, but certain comments about subsection (b) are
instructive:

"Chapter 704 of the Acts of 1975 added an additional set of