Rochester, New York, resident Cristal Starling was diligently saving money to turn her hot dog stand into a full-fledged food truck business when local police raided her home and confiscated her savings. The reason? Her then-boyfriend was suspected of dealing drugs. The agents found no evidence of her boyfriend’s alleged drug dealing, but they did find more than $8,000 of Starling’s hard-earned money—which they took and never returned to her, even after her then boyfriend was acquitted on all charges.
Like many other Americans, Starling is a victim of civil asset forfeiture, a practice that allows law enforcement agencies to seize personal property on the mere suspicion that it was involved in criminal activity. After a lengthy appeal, a federal appellate court in New York has given her a shot at getting her personal property back. In addition, the court set a more just standard for victims of civil forfeiture who attempt to regain their property. This is a big win—both for Starling and for other Americans whose property is unjustly seized every year.
Since 2000, the government has seized more than $68.8 billion from Americans through civil forfeiture. When law enforcement suspects personal property is connected to a criminal act—whether the property is cash, jewelry, a car, home, or business—the agency seizes it and a prosecutor later moves for the state to keep it permanently.
As the court in Starling’s case highlighted, “all this is driven by incentive: The authorities can pocket what they can seize by forfeit.” In Starling’s home state of New York, law enforcement generated $19.7 billion in revenue between 2000 and 2018, and New York law enforcement agencies kept 60 percent, creating an incentive to seize more property and make it difficult for owners to reclaim it.
The reclamation process is difficult by design: a David-and-Goliath struggle between a property owner lacking legal knowledge and an unforgiving and well-funded bureaucracy. One-fifth of all federal claims are rejected based on technicalities before they even reach a judge’s desk for consideration. And keep in mind, because civil asset forfeiture actions technically occur between the property and the state—not the owner and the state—owners are stripped of their right to a court-appointed attorney and other due process protections typically afforded to the criminally accused.
ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/Getty Images
Because the government tends to seize small amounts of cash, vehicles, and other personal items, many owners who want to avoid paying an attorney more than their property is worth are left with a tough choice: either cede their property to the state or represent themselves in court. Indeed, many do give up. The reclamation process is simply too complex and costly: 80 percent of federal forfeiture victims do not even attempt to claim their seized assets.
Starling is a member of the 20 percent who attempt to stand up to the government and reclaim their property, and against all odds, she made it pretty far in the process. She filed a petition to the Department of Justice and a formal claim. Then, a state prosecutor wrongly informed her that her forfeiture case was stayed while her then-boyfriend’s criminal case was underway. While Starling waited for a resolution to her then-boyfriend’s criminal case, the clock was running out on her filing deadline.
After he was acquitted, she reached out to the U.S. Attorney’s Office to file her claim, but it was too late. As a consolation, federal prosecutors offered to split Starling’s life savings with her. That may sound outrageous, but it is not uncommon: law enforcement routinely pressures owners to strike a deal instead of fighting for their property on the merits. Despite the trial court denying her now untimely claim, Starling did not agree to a deal and stood her ground. Luckily, the Institute for Justice stepped in to help her appeal.
On appeal, the federal appellate court held that citizens challenging civil asset forfeiture should be held to the more permissive “good cause standard”—in other words, procedural violations such as missed deadlines are penalized only if they are made in bad faith. The court recognized that accidental procedural hiccups should not prevent Starling, and thousands of other victims of civil asset forfeiture, from contesting unfair seizure in court.
Soon, Starling will get her day in court to contest the unjust seizure of her property, and this time, she’ll have Second Circuit precedent on her side. Victims of civil asset forfeiture across the country will be watching closely.
Jill Jacobson is a law student at Boston College Law School and a contributor at Young Voices.
The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.