H.B. 1689

VETOES

Speaker of the House of Delegates

State House

Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Dear Mr. Speaker:

In accordance with Article II, Section 17 of the Maryland Constitution, I have today
vetoed House Bill 1689.

House Bill 1689 would expressly authorize the court, in a forfeiture proceeding, to
determine whether a seizing agency or forfeiting authority abused its discretion or was
clearly erroneous in making a finding, determination, or recommendation of forfeiture. It
is my understanding that the intent of the bill was to codify the dissenting opinion in a
recent Court of Appeals case relating to the forfeiture of a motor vehicle.

The forfeiture laws, codified in Section 297 of Article 27 of the Annotated Code of
Maryland, are one of the ways the State has decided to punish and deter illegal narcotics
activity. Forfeiture provides law enforcement with a tool to deprive violators of the
instrumentalities of their enterprise.

Prosecutors, law enforcement officials and others have requested a veto of House Bill
1689 because it would place an undue burden on the process by which these officials
exercise their executive responsibility. It is argued that application of the bill could
require the appearance of police chiefs and State's Attorneys to defend their actions,
potentially in each and every decision to forfeit property. This result would thwart the
State's efforts in combatting illegal narcotics activity.

Article 27, Section 297 contains a number of safeguards, both on the front end and back
end of forfeiture proceedings. There are standards and procedures which must be
followed by both the seizing agency (police department) and forfeiting authority (State's
Attorney) before instituting a forfeiture proceeding. Under current law, a forfeiture
proceeding is conducted before the court. The statute further provides for remission or
mitigation when, for example, it is shown that the value of the seized property far exceeds
the seriousness of the particular violation. The court also has the authority to take "action
to protect rights of innocent persons which is in the interest of justice" and not
inconsistent with provisions of Section 297.

Further, I am concerned that neither the public nor members of the General Assembly
had the benefit of a full debate on the merits of House Bill 1689. I understand that the
bill was introduced very late in the Session because the sponsor wanted to specifically
address the Court of Appeals decision filed on March 15, 1994. However, the hearing for
the bill in the House of Delegates was advertised as a "sponsor only" hearing, and there
was no hearing at all in the Senate. I believe that a bill with such great potential impact
on law enforcement requires further review and discussion.

While recent efforts of law enforcement and other governmental entities have produced
some impressive results on the war against drugs and weapons trafficking, that war rages
on. It continues to affect more and more children at ever younger ages. The public
deserves and demands from its elected officials a strong response to the continuing

- 4064 -