Court Opinion

ID: 9643725
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:38:49.718367+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:02.813005
License: Public Domain

Eldridge, J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I fully concur with the portion of the Court’s opinion and judgment relating to the defendant Goldberg. For the reasons set forth in that opinion, the circuit court should have dismissed both appeals in the Goldberg case.
In the Cole case, however, I must dissent. First, I do not believe that the case comes within the scope of Art. 27, § 264, as delineated in subsection (a) of that statute. Second, even if the case falls within the coverage of § 264,1 disagree with the majority’s interpretation and application of Art. 27, §§ 264 (d), 264 (e) (4) and 551. Before addressing these issues, the relevant facts of the Cole case should be set forth.
*638On September 1 and 23,1977, two court orders were issued authorizing the interception of telephone communications from three telephone numbers in Prince George’s County, for the purpose of gathering evidence of gambling. Based upon information gained from the wiretaps, search warrants were issued pursuant to Art. 27, § 551 (a) of the Maryland Code.1 The warrants were executed; Richard Cole and others were arrested, and $15,000.00 in cash was seized by the police. The seized money was turned over to the Director of Finance of Prince George’s County.
A single-count charging document was filed in the District Court of Maryland, charging Cole with conspiracy to violate the gambling laws. Cole filed a request for a jury trial, and the case was removed to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. The State, on September 21, 1978, filed a motion in the circuit court to amend the charging document *639by setting forth seven specific charges, four being substantive violations of the gambling laws and three being conspiracy charges. Shortly thereafter, the trial judge denied the State’s motion to amend its charging document. Consequently, the State filed a new charging document, with seven counts, against Cole in the District Court. On February 8, 1979, the State moved to dismiss the pending circuit court case, and this motion was granted.
Next, pursuant to a suppression motion filed by Cole, the court suppressed all evidence derived from the wiretaps on the ground that the wiretaps were illegal. The State then nol prossed the new District Court charging document.
Within 90 days thereafter, Prince George’s County (the County) filed a petition in equity in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, seeking forfeiture of the seized money under Art. 27, § 264 (a) and (c).2 The court sustained Cole’s demurrer to the petition on the ground that he had not been convicted of any gambling offense, and ordered that the money be returned to Cole. That order was appealed by the County to the Court of Special Appeals which affirmed the circuit court’s sustaining of the demurrer but reversed its return of Cole’s money. Director of Fin., Pr. Geo’s Co. v. Cole, 48 Md.App. 633, 428 A.2d 1227 (1981).3
*640While the appeal to the Court of Special Appeals was pending in the County’s civil forfeiture action under § 264 (c), Cole filed in the circuit court criminal case a "Motion For Appropriate Relief (Return of Seized Property),” seeking a return of the $15,500.00 seized pursuant to the search warrant. The County answered by filing a motion to intervene and an opposition to the return of the money, arguing that Art. 27, § 264 (e) (4), did not authorize the relief. The defendant Cole responded by opposing intervention and arguing that Art. 27, §§ 551 and 264 (e) (4), authorized the motion for return of the property.4
*641The defendant’s motion for return of the property, together with the County’s motion to intervene, was heard by the circuit judge who had presided over the criminal case (Bowen, J.) on June 6,1980. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied the motion to intervene, held that the money was not contraband, and held that the money ought to be returned. The court indicated, however, that if the civil case were reversed on appeal, further proceedings would be held.
After the Court of Special Appeals’ decision in the civil case, on May 11, 1981, the County filed a motion for reconsideration in the criminal case, and Judge Bowen conducted a further hearing on August 4, 1981. During the hearing, the County represented that "if [the money] is not connected to gambling then we agree it should be returned.” At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Bowen delivered an oral opinion pointing out that the "money was seized in connection with an accusation of gambling,” that "the criminal charges could not be proven,” that money is not contraband per se, and that, once the possibility of proving a gambling violation disappeared, the money was not contraband under the statutes. The court held that the County would be permitted to intervene and that the money would be returned. An order permitting intervention and returning the $15,500.00 to the defendant Cole was filed on September 1, 1981, and the County filed an order of appeal on the same day. Prior to briefing and argument in the Court of Special Appeals, this Court granted the County’s petition for a writ of certiorari. 5
*642I.
The majority states on the first page of its opinion that the issue in this case is "whether a trial court, as part of its criminal proceedings, can order the return of money seized pursuant to an arrest for gambling violations covered by Article 27, § 264.” The threshold question, however, is whether this case involves "money seized pursuant to an arrest for gambling violations covered by ... § 264.” If it does not, § 264 is simply not applicable, and no issue arises as to whether the trial court can, under § 264, order the return of the money in the criminal case.
The coverage of Art. 27, § 264, is set forth in subsection (a) of the statute. Under subsection (a), the statute is applicable "[wjhenever any money, currency, or cash is seized ... by any police officer ... in connection with any arrest for” specified gambling violations. In my view, there are two separate reasons why § 264 has ho application to this case.
A.
The gambling violations listed in § 264 (a) are all substantive gambling offenses under Art. 27 of the Code, such as bookmaking, lottery, etc.6 The defendant Cole was not arrested for any of these substantive offenses. Instead, as shown by the District Court charging document, the arrest was for "conspiracy to violate the gambling laws,” and the money was seized in connection with this arrest for conspiracy. Conspiracy to violate the gambling laws is not one of the offenses set forth in § 264.
It is settled that "the crime of conspiracy is not the same in law and in fact as the substantive crime which the appel*643lant, if guilty, conspired to commit.” Rouse v. State, 202 Md. 481, 485, 97 A.2d 285, cert. denied, 346 U.S. 865, 74 S.Ct. 104, 98 L.Ed. 376 (1953) (distinguishing between the substantive offense of lottery and conspiracy to violate the lottery laws). Accord: Scarlett v. State, 201 Md. 310, 318-319, 93 A.2d 753, cert. denied, 345 U.S. 955, 73 S.Ct. 937, 97 L.Ed. 1377 (1953) (similarly distinguishing the substantive offense of lottery from the offense of conspiracy to violate the lottery laws); Gilpin v. State, 142 Md. 464, 467-468, 121 A. 354 (1923); Garland v. State, 112 Md. 83, 86-87, 75 A. 631 (1910); Jones v. State, 8 Md.App. 370, 379-380, 259 A.2d 807 (1969). "The crime [of conspiracy] is complete without any overt act.... The gravamen of the crime is the illegal scheme or design harbored by at least two persons.” Gardner v. State, 286 Md. 520, 524, 408 A.2d 1317 (1979). See Greenwald v. State, 221 Md. 245, 250, 157 A.2d 119, appeal dismissed, 363 U.S. 721, 80 S.Ct. 1599, 4 L.Ed.2d 1521 (1960).
The majority in this case, by treating the offense of conspiracy as identical to the substantive gambling offenses enumerated in § 264, has ignored or sub silentio changed a long-established principle of criminal law. I would adhere to that principle and affirm the circuit court’s judgment on the ground that § 264, upon which Prince George’s County relies, has no application to money seized in connection with an arrest for conspiracy.
B.
If conspiracy to violate the gambling laws were an offense covered by § 264, the statute would nevertheless be inapplicable under the facts of the case, and there would still be no need to reach the statutory interpretation issues with which the majority is concerned. In this case, the arrest, the charge and its associated allegations resulted from an illegal wiretap, and the trial judge ordered all fruits of that wiretap suppressed. Under Code (1974, 1980 Repl. Vol.), §§ 10-405 and 10-408 (i) (2) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings *644Article, the results of an illegal wiretap cannot be used in "any trial, hearing or other proceeding.” See also 18 U.S.C. § 2515 and S. Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. 69 (1968) ("[t]he perpetrator must be denied the fruits of his unlawful actions in civil and criminal proceedings”). Moreover, the fruits of an illegal seizure cannot be used as evidence in a forfeiture proceeding without violating the Fourth Amendment. Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693, 696, 85 S.Ct. 1246, 14 L.Ed.2d 170 (1965). Any illegally seized evidence that is not contraband per se, including money, must be returned unless independent evidence is introduced to prove that it is contraband. 380 U.S. at 699-700. Consequently, this Court cannot look to the fruits of the illegal wiretap in Cole to determine that the case falls within § 264. Because there was no independent evidence showing that the money was seized in connection with an arrest for a gambling offense enumerated in § 264, that statute is inapplicable.7 .
II.
If Art. 27, § 264, is applicable to this case, the question posed by the majority must be answered, namely may a trial judge, as part of the criminal case, order the return of the money under Art. 27, §§ 551 and 264 (e) (4). This involves an interpretation of §§ 551 and 264 (e) (4) and their relationship to subsections (a)-(d) of § 264.
Section 551, previously quoted in notes 1 and 4, supra, provides in subsection (b) that if the criminal case, in which property was seized under a search warrant issued under subsection (a), was disposed of by a nol pros, dismissal or acquittal, all property seized except contraband may be returned without the necessity of any action being instituted *645against the government agency having custody. Subsection (c) of § 551 provides for the return of property rightfully taken under a search warrant but wrongfully withheld after there is no further need for retention of the property. Section 264 (e) (4), also set forth in note 4, supra, states that § 264 does not prohibit the trial judge, after an acquittal or dismissal, from ordering the return of all property seized. Assuming that this case falls within the coverage of § 264 (a), the language of §§ 551 (b) and 264 (e) (4) specifically authorized the order for the return of the property. The majority’s reasons for arriving at a contrary result will not withstand analysis.
A.
The first reason given by the majority for holding that §§ 551 (b) and 264 (e) (4) did not authorize the motion and order for the return of the property, is that the motion was filed too late and that, therefore, the property was already forfeited to the County pursuant to § 264 (d) (3).
Subsection (d) of § 264 deals solely with civil actions for the return of money seized pursuant to subsection (a). Subsection (d) (1) provides that the claimant "may” institute such civil action within one year from the "ultimate disposition” of the criminal charges, and subsection (d) (3) provides that if the civil petition is not timely filed, the seized moneys not disposed of shall be forfeited to the governmental custodian. The majority asserts that the one year time limit for a civil action under subsection (d) is also applicable to a motion in a criminal case under §§ 264 (e) (4) and 551 (b). As Cole’s motion was filed more than a year from the initial dismissal of the criminal charge, the majority maintains that it was untimely and that, consequently, the money was finally forfeited under subsection (d) (3). This reasoning is erroneous. Because § 264 (e) (4) creates an exception to the entire remainder of § 264, the one-year time limit for a civil action in § 264 (d) is inapplicable to a motion in a criminal case under §§ 264 (e) (4) and 551 (b). In addition, § 551 (b) *646specifically provides that the procedure there authorized is an alternative to any civil action for the return of the property. As neither §§ 264 (e) (4) nor § 551 (b) contain any period of limitations for the filing of motions in the criminal case, the only time limit would seem to be provided by the principle of laches. Under the facts, there would be no basis for a holding that Cole’s motion should have been barred by laches.
Even if the one-year time limit of § 264 (d) were applicable to a motion in the criminal case, the motion by the defendant Cole was timely. As indicated above, the one-year period of limitations contained in subsection (d) begins to run from "the ultimate disposition of’ the criminal "charge or charges.” Here the "ultimate disposition” of the criminal charges was the nol pros entered in January 1980, and Mr. Cole’s motion for return of the property was made in May 1980, clearly within one year.
B.
Alternatively, the majority concludes that, even if Cole’s motion for return of the property was timely under § 264 (d), neither § 551 nor § 264 (e) (4) authorized that motion.
(1) Section 551
With respect to Art. 27, § 551, the majority holds that it is inapplicable because "the legislature did not intend that § 551 should have any impact upon the disposition of money seized pursuant to gambling violations, which is prima facie contraband.” The majority apparently means that the phrase in subsection (b) covering the return of "property ... seized pursuant to a search warrant issued under subsection (a) of this section,” and the phrase in subsection (c) covering the return of "property. . . taken under a search warrant,” do not include money seized in connection with an arrest for *647alleged gambling violations. This interpretation of § 551 would lead to the absurd result that no search warrant could be issued under § 551 (a) for money allegedly used in connection with illegal gambling. The "property” which is the subject of a motion for return under subsections (b) and (c) is the same "property” which can be the subject of a search warrant under subsection (a).
By plain and unambiguous language, subsection (b) of § 551 authorized the type of application made in Cole. Subsection (b) encompasses property seized by a search warrant under § 551 (a), and money allegedly used in illegal gambling can certainly be seized by a warrant under § 551 (a).8 Subsection (b) covers the situations where the criminal charges were disposed of by nol pros, dismissal or acquittal; the subsection is thus clearly applicable in the Cole case. Although the majority attempts to read an exclusion into § 551 for money which is alleged to be contraband and which falls within § 264 (a), § 551 (b) expressly applies to "all property” of the defendant except that which is in fact contraband.9 Subsection (b) of § 551 also expressly does away with the necessity of the defendant instituting "any other legal proceeding against the agency having custody of the property.” The majority’s construction of § 551 (b) cannot be squared with this Court’s repeated admonition that, where statutory language is unambiguous, courts should give effect to the statute as written. See, e.g., Lowenthal v. Rome, 294 Md. 277, 281-282, 449 A.2d 411 (1982), cert. denied, U.S. , 103 S.Ct. 1253, 75 L.Ed.2d 481 (1983); Guardian Life Ins. v. Ins. Comm’r, 293 Md. 629, 642-643, 446 A.2d 1140 (1982); Smelser v. Criterion Ins. Co., 293 Md. 384, 389, *648444 A.2d 1024 (1982); State v. Loscomb, 291 Md. 424, 429, 435 A.2d 764 (1981); Gietka v. County Executive, 283 Md. 24, 27, 387 A.2d 291 (1978); Guy v. Director, 279 Md. 69, 72, 367 A.2d 946 (1977); Slate v. Zitomer, 275 Md. 534, 539-540, 341 A.2d 789 (1975), cert. denied, sub. nom. Gasperich v. Church, 423 U.S. 1076, 96 S.Ct. 862, 47 L.Ed.2d 87 (1976).
(2) Section 264 (e) (4)
The trial court’s order in Cole was also fully warranted under Art. 27, § 264 (e) (4). The majority holds that "when the money seized in a gambling case is presumptively contraband at the time of seizure § 264 (e) (4) has no application and the judge in the criminal proceeding has no authority to order return of the money.” As § 264 (a)-(d) relates only to money, seized in connection with a gambling arrest, which is presumptively contraband at the time of seizure, the majority is holding that § 264 (e) (4) has no application in any case covered by § 264. But, by its very terms, subsection (e) (4) of § 264 only relates to a case covered by § 264. Section 264 (e) (4) provides that "[t]his section does not prohibit the trial judge after an acquittal or dismissal from ordering immediate return of all property seized.” (Emphasis added.) By stating that this section does not prohibit the return of all property by the criminal trial judge, the Legislature was obviously referring to money seized under § 264 (a) and subject to the procedures of § 264 (c) and (d). Subsection (e) (4) of § 264 is addressed solely to the other parts of § 264, and was obviously designed to insure that subsections (a)-(d) of § 264 were not construed or applied to prohibit the alternate procedure of a return order in the criminal case. As shown by its plain language, the sole purpose of subsection (e) (4) was to prevent a holding like that of the majority today. Unfortunately, the Legislature was totally unsuccessful.
The majority, apparently recognizing that its construction of § 264 (e) (4) cannot be justified by the statutory language, ultimately concludes that § 264 (e) (4) cannot be reconciled *649with the rest of the statute and that " 'there is [an] inescapable conflict’ ” between subsection (e) (4) and the remainder of § 264. In this manner, the majority effects a repeal of § 264 (e) (4), thus violating the settled principle that all parts of a statute are to be harmonized and given effect.10 In my view, the majority strains to find a conflict between subsection (e) (4) and the remainder of § 264. There simply is no such conflict.
Subsection (e) (4) was added to § 264 by Ch. 720 of the Acts of 1977, which also generally revised the other provisions of § 264. Earlier in its opinion, the majority points to the notes of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee suggesting a need to streamline forfeiture procedure because of the number of cases in Baltimore City. The majority then refers to the change made in § 264 (a), whereby conditional title is said to vest immediately in the local government custodian, and the complete re-writing of subsection (d) including the varius presumptions in civil actions.11 Later, in discussing subsection (e) (4), the majority states: "It hardly seems logical that the purpose [of streamlining the procedure] would be served, however, by tacking on a section at the end of § 264 that would abrogate the elaborate procedure of the statute by allowing the return of money absent a con*650sideration of the prevailing presumptions and character of the money.” Of course, the wisdom of a statutory provision is a matter for the Legislature and not this Court. In addition, permitting the criminal trial judge to order an immediate return of seized property does not "abrogate” the remainder of the statute; it merely provides an alternate procedure in the limited circumstances of an acquittal or dismissal of the criminal charges. Also, there was no need to guide the criminal trial judge with statutory presumptions, as he would be intimately familiar with the evidence concerning the seized property. Moreover, subsection (e) (4) is entirely consistent with the purpose of streamlining the procedure to reduce a backlog of cases in Baltimore City.
Although the purpose underlying subsection (e) (4) may be different from the purpose underlying the remainder of Ch. 720 of the Acts of 1977, such difference in purpose does not create a conflict. Moreover, the difference in purpose is explained by the legislative history. Ch. 720 originated as Senate Bill 566. The bill as introduced by the chairman of the Baltimore City Senate delegation, as it emerged from the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, and as it passed the Senate, did not contain subsection (e) (4). Subsection (e) (4) was a House of Delegates addition proposed from the floor by Delegate Arnick, 1977 House of Delegates Journal at 3725.12 Therefore, one would not necessarily expect the purpose of subsection (e) (4) to be reflected in the provisions previously adopted by the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee.13
*651(3)
The majority’s interpretations of Art. 27, § 551, and Art. 27, § 264 (e) (4), clearly frustrate the purpose of those sections. Enacted in 1975, 1976 and 1977, §§ 551 (b), 551 (c) and 264 (e) (4) were obviously intended to overcome, to a large extent, this Court’s opinions in Gatewood v. State, 264 Md. 301, 285 A.2d 623 (1972); State v. Greer, 263 Md. 692, 284 A.2d 233 (1971); and Pr. George’s Co. v. Blue Bird Cab, 263 Md. 655, 284 A.2d 203 (1971). The majority proceeds as if those opinions were fully applicable to the present statutory scheme, and as if §§ 551 and 264 (e) (4) were never passed.
In subsections (b) and (c) of § 551, by authorizing motions for the return of property seized under a search warrant to be made to the criminal court, and by specifying the conditions under which return of such property can be made, the Legislature certainly intended that the criminal trial judge determine whether the conditions for return are met. Furthermore, by not requiring the judge to hold a hearing on the application, by not requiring that anyone be served, and by requiring that the State’s Attorney receive a copy of the return order only if the application for return was "oral,” the General Assembly clearly contemplated an informal or summary proceeding at which the criminal court judge would rely upon the prior proceedings in the criminal case as well as anything submitted in connection with the application for return. Art. 27, § 264 (e) (4), contemplates the same type of action.14 In Cole this is precisely what was done, with the same judge who heard the criminal case making a determination that the statutory conditions for return of the money were met. Assuming that § 264 was applicable in the first place, I perceive no sound reason for overturning his decision.15
*652Judge Davidson has authorized me to state that she concurs with the views expressed herein.

. Maryland Code (1957, 1976 Repl. Vol., 1978 Cum. Supp.), Art. 27, § 551 (a), as it read during the relevant time period, provided in part:
"§ 551. Issuance; contents; time of search, etc.; disposition of property seized.
(a) Whenever it be made to appear to any judge of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City, or to any judge of any of the circuit courts in the counties of this State, or to any judge of the District Court, by written application signed and sworn to by the applicant, accompanied by an affidavit or affidavits containing facts within the personal knowledge of the affiant or affiants, that there is probable cause, the basis of which shall be set forth in said affidavit or affidavits, to believe that any misdemeanor or felony is being committed by any individual or in any building, apartment, premises, place or thing within the territorial jurisdiction of such judge, or that any property subject to seizure under the criminal laws of the State is situated or located on the person of any such individual or in or on any such building, apartment, premises, place or thing, then the judge may forthwith issue a search warrant directed to any duly constituted policeman, or police officer authorizing him to search such suspected individual, building, apartment, premises, place or thing, and to seize any property found liable to seizure under the criminal laws of this State, provided that any such search warrant shall name or describe, with reasonable particularity, the individual, building, apartment, premises, place or thing to be searched, the grounds for such search and the name of the applicant on whose written application as aforesaid the warrant was issued, and provided further that any search or seizure under the authority of such search warrant, shall be made within 15 calendar days from the date of the issuance thereof and after the expiration of the 15-day period said warrant shall be null and void....”

. Art. 27, § 264 (a) and (c), provide in part as follows:
"(a) Deemed contraband. — Whenever any money, currency, or cash is seized or captured by any police officer in this State in connection with any arrest for the playing or operation of any bookmaking, betting and wagering on horses or athletic events, or any lottery, game, table, or gaming device unlawful under the provisions of this article, all such money, currency, or cash shall be deemed prima facie to be contraband of law as a gambling device or as a part of a gambling operation....
"(c) Forfeiture upon conviction. — If the trial or other ultimate disposition of such charge ... results in a record of conviction being entered against the person or persons so arrested, ... the county treasurer... shall within 90 days from the date of the record of the entry of such conviction... make application to the ... court... for an order declaring ... that such money ... shall be forfeited....”

. There was no further review of the Court of Special Appeals’ decision by this Court, and the issues in that case are not before us in the instant case. Consequently, it would be inappropriate to express any opinion concerning the decision of the Court of Special Appeals.

. Art. 27, § 551 (b), enacted by Ch. 704 of the Acts of 1975, provides as follows:
"(b) If the criminal case in which property of a person was seized pursuant to a search warrant issued under subsection (a) of this section is disposed of because of (i) an entry of nolle prosequi, (ii) dismissal, or (iii) acquittal, or if the State does not appeal such a criminal case or if the time for appeal has expired, all property of the person, except contraband or any property prohibited by law from being recoverable, may be returned to the person to whom it belongs without the necessity of that person instituting an action for replevin or any other legal proceeding against the agency having custody of the property.”
Art. 27, § 551 (c), enacted by Ch. 704 of the Acts of 1976, provided as follows during the relevant time period: „
"(c)(1) If, at any time, on application to a judge of the circuit court of any county or of the Criminal Court of Baltimore City or judge of the District Court, it is found that property rightfully taken under a search warrant is being wrongfully withheld after there is no further need for retention of the property, the judge must cause it to be restored to the person from whom it was taken.
(2) In the discretion of the judge, an oral motion made in open court may be received at any time making application for the return of seized property if the application for return is based on the grounds that the property, although rightfully taken under a search warrant, is being wrongfully withheld after there is no further need for retention of the property. If the judge grants the oral motion, the order of the court shall be in writing and a copy of the order shall be sent to the State’s attorney.
(3) If the judge rejects the proffer of an oral motion and requires the person from whom the property was taken to proceed for return of the seized property by petition and an order to show cause to the authority wrongfully withholding the property and it is subsequently ordered that the property be restored to the person from whom it was taken, court costs shall not he assessed against the petitioner.”
*641Art. 27, § 264 (e) (4), enacted by Ch. 720 of the Acts of 1977, provides as follows:
"This section does not prohibit the trial judge after an acquittal or dismissal from ordering immediate return of all property seized.”

. As the case was not decided by the Court of Special Appeals, we are not limited to the issues raised in the certiorari petition. Rather, under Maryland Rule 813 b, "this Court will consider those issues which would be cognizable in a case on direct appeal.” Consequently, the principle that an appellate court wil ordinarily affirm a trial court’s judgment on any ground adequately shown by the record, even though not relied on by the trial court *642and not urged by a party, is fully applicable. See J. I. Case Credit Corp. v. Insley, 293 Md. 483, 487, 445 A.2d 689 (1982), and cases there cited.

. The language of § 264 (a) encompasses money seized "in connection with any arrest for the playing or operation of any bookmaking, betting and wagering on horses or athletic events, or any lottery, game, table, or gaming device unlawful under the provisions of this article ....”

. The majority in n. 6, after citing Plymouth Sedan and other cases, states that "there is no constitutional basis for making a distinction between per se and derivative contraband.” But the Supreme Court in Plymouth Sedan specifically distinguished between per se contraband and derivative contraband for purposes of the exclusionary rule; in fact, this was the major point of the Supreme Court’s opinion. See 380 U.S. at 699-700.

. In fact the Court of Special Appeals, in a recent scholarly opinion by Judge Moylan, has suggested that § 551 was enacted specifically because of gambling cases. In Re Special Investigation No. 228, 54 Md.App. 149, 160, 458 A.2d 820, 825 (1983). As pointed out in that opinion, ibid., what is now § 551 was previously codified under the "Gaming” subtitle of the Code. See Maryland Code (1939), Art. 27, § 306.

. While the majority attempts to explain away his conclusion, Judge Bowen in the Cole case expressly found on two occasions that the money was not contraband. Even without this conclusion, once the first criminal case was dismissed and the second criminal case was nol prossed, the money was no longer presumptively contraband. See § 264 (d) (2).

. See, e.g., Rome v. Lowenthal, 290 Md. 33, 41, 428 A.2d 75 (1981); Hope v. Baltimore County, 288 Md. 656, 666, 421 A.2d 576 (1980); Brown v. Brown, 287 Md. 273, 285, 412 A.2d 396 (1980); Equitable Trust Co. v. State Comm’n, 287 Md. 80, 89, 411 A.2d 86 (1980); Condominium Owners v. Supervisor, 283 Md. 29, 32, 388 A.2d 116 (1978); Schweitzer v. Brewer, 280 Md. 430, 438, 374 A.2d 347 (1977); Blumenthal v. Clerk of Cir. Ct., 278 Md. 398, 403, 365 A.2d 279 (1976); City of Baltimore v. United Five & Ten Cent Stores, Inc., 250 Md. 361, 368-369, 243 A.2d 521 (1968); Austin v. Buettner, 211 Md. 61, 69-70, 124 A.2d 793 (1956).

. As pointed out by the County Attorney’s Office at the circuit court hearing in Goldberg, the changes made in 1977, particularly relating to the immediate vesting of title, were occasioned by a United States District Court case holding that federal tax liens took priority over the claims of Baltimore City to money seized in a gambling arrest. United States v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 416 F.Supp. 380 (D.Md. 1976), aff'd in part and reversed in part, 564 F.2d 1066 (4th Cir. 1977). The federal court cases had relied upon the theories set forth in Gatewood v. State, 264 Md. 301, 285 A.2d 623 (1972); State v. Greer, 263 Md. 692, 284 A.2d 233 (1971); and Pr. George’s Co. v. Blue Bird Cab, 263 Md. 655, 284 A.2d 203 (1971), which dealt with the earlier Maryland statutory provisions relating to forfeiture.

. Delegate Arnick, along with Delegate Murphy, had also been the sponsor the year before of House Bill 902, which had added subsection (c) to Art. 27, § 551.

. The majority suggests one additional reason for the inapplicability of § 264 (e) (4). The opinion points out that § 264 (e) (4) authorizes a motion in the criminal case after "an acquittal or dismissal.” While acknowledging that the circuit court case was "dismissed,” the majority contends that, because a dismissal by the State is ordinarily equivalent under Maryland law to a nol pros, a dismissal on the State’s motion is not a "dismissal” within the meaning of § 264 (e) (4). This construction is totally unsupported by the statutory language. Section 264 (e) (4) covers any "dismissal,” without distinguishing a dismissal upon the State’s motion from a dismissal upon the defendant’s motion. No reason is advanced by the majority for distinguishing between the two types of dismissals.

. Whether § 264 (e) (4), was intended only to preserve motions falling within statutes such as 551 (b) or 551 (c), or whether § 264 (e) (4) also applies when there is no other statutory basis, is a question which need not be answered in this case.

. Presumably the result of the majority’s opinion and the judgment is *652that Mr. Cole’s money is finally forfeited to the County under § 264 (d) (3). If this is so, it presents serious constitutional questions. It must be kept in mind that here we are dealing with the forfeiture of Cole’s money because of offenses allegedly committed by him, and thus, regardless of state law form or labels, the matter is criminal in nature. United States v. United States Coin and Currency, 401 U.S. 715, 718, 720, 91 S.Ct. 1041, 28 L.Ed.2d 434 (1971); Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, supra, 380 U.S. at 700 ("a forfeiture proceeding is quasi-criminal in character. Its object, like a criminal proceeding, is to penalize for the commission of an offense against the law.”).
There has been no criminal conviction of Cole or anyone else in connection with the seized property, and no proceeding (either civil or as part of the criminal case) at which the seized property has been adjudicated contraband. The property is not contraband per se; rather, it is entirely lawful to possess money. Moreover, as the majority opinion points out, supra, p. 631, "[ojnce an ultimate disposition of nol pros was reached there was prima facie evidence that the money was not contraband.”
Under these circumstances, I do not believe that a decision, that Cole’s property has been finally forfeited to the government, comports with the due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. Moreover, the majority’s holding (which goes beyond any forfeiture case of which I am aware), contravenes the principles of the just compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment and Art. Ill, § 40, of the Maryland Constitution.