Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. One 1995 Corvette VIN No. 1G1YY22P585103433
Decision Date | 01 September 1997 |
Docket Number | No. 209,No. 1G1YY22P585103433,1G1YY22P585103433,209 |
Citation | 706 A.2d 43,119 Md.App. 691 |
Parties | MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE v. ONE 1995 CORVETTE VIN, |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Kimberly Smith Ward, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., Patricia Jessamy, State's Atty. and Rudolph F. Drayton, Asst. State's Atty. for Baltimore City, on the brief), Baltimore, for appellant.
No brief filed by appellee's counsel.
Before MOYLAN and HARRELL, JJ., and ROSALYN B. BELL, Judge (retired, Specially Assigned).
F. The Exclusionary Rule Does Not Apply to Grand Jury Proceedings ... 50
G. The Exclusionary Rule is Not a Factor in Federal Habeas Corpus
Review ......................................................... 50
H. The Exclusionary Rule Does Not Apply to Tax Forfeitures of
Gambling Proceeds .............................................. 51
I. The Exclusionary Rule Does Not Apply to Civil Deportation
Proceedings .................................................... 52
J. The Exclusionary Rule Does Not Apply to Live Witnesses Discovered
in the Course of a Fourth Amendment Violation .................. 53
. K. The Exclusionary Rule Does Not Apply to the Impeachment in
Rebuttal of Testimonial Credibility ............................ 53
L. The "Good Faith Exception" to the Application of the Exclusionary
Rule ........................................................... 53
"Civil" ............................................................ 82
4. An Allegedly Innocent Owner Must Prove His Innocence .... 99
5. The Significance of § 297's Characterization as "Civil"
Goes Beyond the Double Jeopardy Clause ............... 100
Does the prophylactic 1 Exclusionary Rule of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961), apply in a civil, in-rem forfeiture proceeding in Maryland of an automobile used in the drug trade? No, it does not. Does the case of One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693, 85 S.Ct. 1246, 14 L.Ed.2d 170 (1965), stand for the broad principle that Mapp 's Exclusionary Rule must be applied to all drug-related forfeitures of automobiles regardless of whether those forfeiture proceedings are criminal or civil in character? A close reading of the opinion reveals that it most certainly does not. In the years since 1965, however, the academic discipline of reading the case closely has been honored more in the breach than in the observance. Has One 1958 Plymouth Sedan, whatever it stood for, retained its vitality over the thirty-three years since it was handed down? No, it has not.
On May 9, 1996, Baltimore City police officers, conducting a surveillance in the 300 block of East Coldspring Lane, stopped a 1995 Chevrolet Corvette based on their belief that the driver had just engaged in a drug transaction. In the course of the stop, the automobile was searched and the following contraband was found: 487 grams of 82% pure cocaine in one large ziplock bag; approximately 12.8 grams of 80% pure cocaine packaged in seven blue ziplock bags; and 35 grams of 81% pure cocaine packaged in five plastic bags. The officers concluded that the automobile was being used to transport drugs. The automobile itself was seized, and the driver, Weldon Connell Holmes, was placed under arrest. 2 At the time of the seizure, Weldon Holmes was the registered owner of the automobile, and the General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC) was the lien holder.
On June 6, 1996, the State's Attorney for Baltimore City filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City seeking forfeiture of the Chevrolet Corvette pursuant to Maryland Annotated Code, Article 27, § 297. In pertinent part, subsection (b), listing the "Property Subject to Forfeiture," includes the following:
(4) All conveyances including ... vehicles ... which are used ... to transport, or in any manner to facilitate the transportation, sale, receipt, possession, or concealment of [controlled dangerous substances].
...
(10) [A]ll proceeds traceable to ... an exchange [of] a controlled dangerous substance.
Pursuant to subsection (b)(4), the Complaint for Forfeiture included the following allegation:
That on or about the 9th day of May, 1996, Weldon Connell Holmes, and/or his agents used and intended to use the above described motor vehicle while engaged in an unlawful violation of the Controlled Dangerous Substance Law of the State of Maryland by having possession of 487 grams of 82% pure cocaine packaged in one (1) large ziplock, approximately 12.8 grams of 80% pure cocaine packaged in seven (7) blue ziplock bags, and thirty-five (35) grams of 81% pure cocaine packaged in five (5) plastic bags as well as other possible related violations, as proscribed by Article 27 Section 276-302, Annotated Code of Maryland.
As an alternative basis for the forfeiture and pursuant to subsection (b)(10), the Complaint for Forfeiture included the following allegation:
8. That the subject vehicle is a proceed traceable to the profits made from the illegal sales of Controlled Dangerous Substances.
On September 10 and 12, 1996, a hearing was held on the forfeiture action, at which time the defense moved to dismiss the complaint based on the illegal search and seizure of the drugs from the automobile. The trial court denied the motion. The defense renewed its motion to dismiss prior to the testimony of Officer Tony Ellison, one of the officers involved in the search. The motion was again denied. A continuing objection was then made by the defense to the introduction of the drugs seized from the automobile. At the conclusion of all of the testimony, the trial court, despite its two earlier rulings, requested that both counsel submit memoranda of law on the issue of whether the Exclusionary Rule applied to exclude evidence in a civil forfeiture proceeding.
In a Memorandum and Order dated October 29, 1996, the trial court concluded that the Fourth Amendment had been violated because the police officers lacked probable cause to believe that contraband was located in the automobile. As a result of the Fourth Amendment violation the trial court, relying almost exclusively on One 1958 Plymouth Sedan, held that the Exclusionary Rule applies in civil forfeiture cases. In doing so, the court stated, Accordingly, the trial court ruled that the drugs illegally seized from the automobile could not be admitted at the forfeiture proceeding and dismissed the State's complaint. From that dismissal the State appeals.
No ruling was made with respect to the State's alternative theory of forfeiture, to wit, that the vehicle was "a proceed traceable to the profits made from the illegal sales of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
1995 CORVETTE VIN# 1G1YY22P585103433 v. Mayor and City Council of …, 63
... 724 A.2d 680 353 Md. 114 ONE G1YY22P585103433 ... MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE ... No. 63, Sept. Term, 1998 ... Court of Appeals of Maryland ... February 23, 1999 ... M. Albert Figinski, Baltimore, Richard A. Finci, New Carrollton (Kenneth W. Ravenell, Harry Levy, Schulman, Treem, Kaminkow and Gilden, P.A., Baltimore), on brief, for petitioner ... ...
-
U.S. Currency in Amount of $26,980.00, In re
...the power to enforce a forfeiture regardless of how control was obtained over the property"); Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. One 1995 Corvette, 119 Md.App. 691, 706 A.2d 43 (1998) (holding that exclusionary rule does not apply to civil in rem forfeiture proceeding). Federal courts, ......
-
People v. $241,600 U.S. Currency
...an intrasovereign violation, such as occurred in the present case. This issue was decided in Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. One 1995 Corvette (1998) 119 Md.App. 691, 706 A.2d 43, in which police officers stopped a vehicle, believing the driver had just engaged in a drug transaction.......
-
1995 Chevy Corvette v. Baltimore, 96
...711 A.2d 871 1995 Chevy Corvette v. Baltimore No. 96 Sept.Term, 1998 Court of Appeals of Maryland June 30, 1998 Reported below: 119 Md.App. 691, 706 A.2d 43. Disposition: ...