Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 823 September Term, 1995 _______________________________

ONE 1984 FORD TRUCK VIN #1FTCF15F1ENA87898 v. BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND

_______________________________ Wilner, C.J., *Bloom, Alpert (retired, specially assigned), JJ. _______________________________

Opinion by Wilner, C.J. _______________________________ Filed: August 28, 1996 *Bloom, J., now retired, participated in the hearing and decision of this case while an active member of this Court; after being recalled pursuant to the Constitution of Maryland,

Article IV, Sections 3A and 18(b) he also participated in the adoption of this opinion.

- 1 -

This is an appeal from a civil forfeiture action against appellant's vehicle, which was used to transport and facilitate the sale of illegal drugs. Appellant complains that, because he was

previously convicted of and sentenced to incarceration for the underlying drug offense, the forfeiture of his truck constitutes a second punishment for the same offense in violation of the law against double jeopardy. We recently had occasion to review this very issue in

Stratemeyer v. State, 107 Md. App. 420 (1995).

In that case,

relying on a recent trilogy of Supreme Court cases -- United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435 (1989), Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993), and Department of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. ____, 114 S.Ct. 1937 (1994) -- we overruled our previous holding in Allen v. State, 91 Md. App. 775, cert. denied, State v. Threatt, 328 Md. 92 (1992), and held that forfeiting a defendant's vehicle pursuant to Md. Code art. 27,

Download 1984 Ford Truck v. Baltimore.pdf

Maryland Law