In October of 1984, appellant, the State of Maryland, filed a Petition in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for Forfeiture of a 1976 Dodge Motor Vehicle. The forfeiture petition was dismissed pursuant to the motion of Steven Stagmer, the registered owner of the automobile. The State now complains as follows:
I. The trial court erred in imposing a “de novo” or “independent” determination regarding the sufficiency of the article 27, § 297(F)(1) decision by the police commissioner to recommend forfeiture instead of reviewing that decision on a “clearly erroneous” or “abuse of discretion” standard.
II. The trial court erred in dismissing the petition for forfeiture where sufficient evidence was presented to support the police commissioner’s recommendation for forfeiture.
III. The trial court committed reversible error when it denied appellant’s counsel any opportunity to present argument in a civil non-jury forfeiture proceeding.
Unlike the State, Mr. Stagmer apparently does not consider the loss of a nine-year old vehicle momentous; he has abstained from opposing the State’s appeal.
I.
Appellant’s first claim of error invites us to hold that, when faced with a forfeiture petition under Md.Ann. Code art. 27, § 297 (1982 Repl. Vol. and 1985 Cum.Supp.), a circuit court is empowered to determine Only “whether the police commissioner abused his discretion or was clearly erroneous in recommending forfeiture____” Our reading of art. 27, § 297 convinces^ us, however, that the statute contemplates á trial
de novo.
Section 297(j) requires the circuit court to hold “a full hearing”; in addition, it sets out the specific actions that the court shall take
once it has determined
that a motor vehicle should or should not be forfeit
*485
ed. For us to construe § 297 as saying that the circuit court should act in an appellate capacity, as the State urges, would insert words “with a view toward making the statute express an intention which is different from its plain meaning,”
Montgomery County v. Fulks,
II.
Our ruling in Section I above is not intended to expand the circuit court’s powers in a forfeiture proceeding. Its duties and powers are and remain
“narrowly limited____ Once the seizing authority decides to seek forfeiture, the court’s only responsibilities are to require proof that the vehicle seized was ‘used, or intended for use, to transport, or in any manner to facilitate the transportation, sale, receipt, possession, or concealment of [controlled dangerous substances]’; determine that no statutory exceptions are applicable; and insure the adherence of due process requirements.”
Prince George’s County v. One 1969 Opel,
*486 The record before us reveals that the trial court found that the State failed to establish a basis of forfeiture by a preponderance of the evidence. We too have reviewed the evidence presented by the State; we find that the circuit court’s determination was not clearly erroneous. Md. Rule 1086.
III.
By its third claim, the State suggests that its right to present argument before the court renders its decision in a forfeiture proceeding rises to the level of that of a defendant in a criminal proceeding. Assuming
arguendo
that the State has such a right, we believe it is only proper that the State be held to the same standard as a defendant when it comes to preserving a claim of error for appeal. In the light of this Court’s recent decision of
Cherry v. State,
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
COSTS TO BE PAID BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE.
Notes
. While we recognize that § 297 has been amended since the cited cases were decided, we believe that those cases still reflect the extent of the trial court’s authority.