MARYLAND LOSES ILLEGAL FORFEITURE EVIDENCE APPEAL

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court Tuesday rejected an appeal by
state officials seeking to use evidence illegally obtained by the
police in civil forfeiture cases.

The high court refused to reconsider its 1965 ruling that the
exclusionary rule -- which requires that evidence may not be used in a
criminal trial if it stemmed from illegal police misconduct -- applies
to civil forfeiture cases.

Such cases typically involve individuals being required to forfeit or
give up property or money that has been linked to illegal activities
such as drug dealing.

Maryland Attorney General J. Joseph Curran argued in the appeal that
the court's more recent decisions have cast substantial doubt on
whether the 1965 ruling "remains viable law."

He said the court since 1965 has repeatedly refused to extend the
exclusionary rule beyond criminal trials and has sharply limited
application of its use even in criminal cases.

More than 20 states supported the appeal, saying the application of
the exclusionary rule to civil forfeitures "significantly impedes
important state interests" in reducing crime. They said only a "remote
possibility" exists that use of the rule in civil forfeitures deters
improper police conduct.

But the Supreme Court rejected Maryland's appeal without any comment
or dissent.

The case involved efforts by Maryland officials seeking the forfeiture
of an automobile allegedly used in the drug trade.

Acting on an informant's tip, three Baltimore police officers were
conducting general surveillance in 1996 when Weldon Holmes parked his
1995 Corvette in the area.

They observed another man hand Holmes a large black bag through the
car window. Holmes, who drove away, later was stopped by the police,
who asked about the bag.

Holmes replied that it contained gym equipment. The officer said
Holmes did not have to reveal the bag's contents, but he said he would
request a drug-sniffing dog. Holmes quickly opened and shut the bag,
and an officer thought he saw drugs.

During the arrest, another officer took the bag outside the car and
looked inside. It contained about 500 grams of cocaine. The officers
also found in the car a brown paper bag that contained smaller bags of
cocaine totaling about 48 grams.

The criminal charges against Holmes later were dropped.

Holmes moved to dismiss the civil forfeiture case involving his
Corvette on the grounds the bags had been obtained in violation of his
constitutional right protecting against unreasonable searches and
seizures of evidence.

A trial court agreed, ruling the officers did not have sufficient
cause to believe the car contained contraband, suppressing the
evidence and dismissing the case. The decision was upheld by the
Maryland Court of Appeals.

Attorneys for Holmes said forfeiture has emerged an important tool
used by law enforcement and that the use of the exclusionary rule was
just as appropriate in such cases as in purely criminal
proceedings.