State v. Greer

Digges, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal by the State of Maryland is from an ex parte order of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County directing that the Montgomery County Police return to its owner an automobile that they had seized pursuant to Art. 27, § 297 of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1957, 1971 Repl. Vol.). The order was issued by Judge Shure following a petition for release by the car’s owner, Bettie Buck Greer, appellee in this case.

The facts of this skirmish are quite simple. John Bruce Greer, son of the appellee, allegedly sold some marijuana to an undercover police agent early in November 1970, with the transaction taking place entirely inside Mrs. Greer’s Chevy II. About a month later, on December 9, Bruce Greer was arrested on the basis of this illegal sale and the car he used was seized under the authority of Art. 27, § 297 (a) (4). This subsection in part states that: “All conveyances including aircraft, vehicles, or vessels, which are used, or intended for use, to transport, or in any manner to facilitate the transportation, sale, receipt, possession, or concealment of . . . [dangerous drugs are subject to forfeiture].” At the time of the seizure police found 22 grams of hashish, a purified extract of hemp similar to marijuana, hidden in the car.

Following this, on May 11, 1971, but prior to any criminal conviction of her son, Bruce, 1 Mrs. Greer filed a petition in his criminal case for release of ⁶⁹⁴ the vehicle and without any notice to the State, County or anyone else, relief was given by the court. From that decision the State appeals claiming the order was void since it had received no notice of the petition and consequently was not afforded an opportunity to contest the granting of that request. We agree, finding error was committed on three fronts. The first is that the petition here cannot be filed and granted as an adjunct to a criminal case.

Forfeiture, unless specifically provided otherwise by statute, is a civil in rem proceeding, separate from any criminal action and it is of little significance whether there is a criminal conviction. Lilienthal’s Tobacco v. United States, 97 U. S. 237 , 24 L. Ed. 901 (1878); Prince George’s County v. Blue Bird Cab Company, Inc., 263 Md. 655 , 284 A. 2d 203 (1971). In the same vein the innocence of the owner of the vehicle is no defense. Prince George’s County v. Blue Bird, supra.

But see United States v. U. S. Coin and Currency, 401 U. S. 715 , 91 S. Ct. 1041 , 28 L.Ed.2d 434 (1971). The second ground whence error springs concerns naming the State of Maryland as the sole respondent in this controversy. Article 27, § 297 (c) provides that: “Property taken or detained under this