In a recent victory against civil asset forfeiture abuse, a New Yorker has emerged triumphant in a lawsuit after police officers seized $8,040 from him without charging him with a crime.
This case sheds light on the ongoing issue of law enforcement's misuse of civil asset forfeiture laws, and its implications could pave the way for important reforms in the system.
Cristal Starling, a Rochester resident, recently reclaimed $8,040 that was seized from her home "as evidence" by local law enforcement after they arrested her then-boyfriend for supposedly committing drug offenses. The ordeal began about four years ago, when law enforcement executed a search warrant.
She had been trying since 2020 when Rochester police took that sum from her residence as evidence while executing a warrant against her boyfriend at the time. RPD would give the money to the DEA.
That man was arrested and charged and has since been acquitted… But Starling was never charged.
One of the attorneys at the Institute of Justice, working on her case, Will Aronin, told News 8 Friday she had been saving that money to grow her business.
Aronin explained that Starling did not have an attorney, and couldn’t respond to notices fast enough. Then he said the federal government tried to keep the money using civil forfeiture, even winning a 2022 decision.
After the state-sanctioned theft, Starling initiated what would be a years-long legal battle to regain her property. Finally, she won her battle, but she noted that while she was “happy” to have her money back, the government should do more. “I also deserve to paid interest,” she told reporters.
Civil asset forfeiture allows law enforcement agencies to seize assets suspected of being involved in criminal activity, even if the owner has not been charged with a crime. While proponents argue that it is a valuable tool in combating organized crime and drug trafficking, critics point out its potential for abuse and its violation of individuals' due process rights. The practice is commonly referred as “Policing for Profit.” To lear more about it, check out my article here.
This particular case underscores the egregious nature of some forfeiture practices. The plaintiff, who preferred to remain anonymous, was pulled over by police officers for a traffic violation. During the stop, the officers discovered a substantial amount of cash in his possession and seized it under suspicion of being connected to illegal activity. However, the plaintiff was never charged with a crime, and there was no evidence presented to support the allegation.
The lawsuit brought against the police department challenged the seizure as unconstitutional and a violation of the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights, which protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the return of the seized funds.
This victory not only provides justice for the plaintiff but also sends a clear message to law enforcement agencies about the consequences of overstepping their authority. It serves as a reminder that individuals have rights that must be respected, especially in the context of law enforcement operations.
Moreover, this case adds momentum to the broader movement for reforming civil asset forfeiture laws. Across the country, there has been growing bipartisan support for reining in the practice and increasing accountability for law enforcement agencies who abuse it.
One proposed reform is to require a criminal conviction before assets can be forfeited, ensuring that individuals are not deprived of their property without due process. Another suggestion is to redirect forfeiture proceeds away from law enforcement agencies and into general funds or community programs, removing the financial incentive for abuse.
However, despite increasing awareness and advocacy efforts, meaningful reform has been slow to materialize. Not surprisingly, law enforcement agencies often resist changes to forfeiture laws, arguing that they are necessary for combating crime effectively.
Nevertheless, cases like this one serve as important catalysts for change. They highlight the human cost of forfeiture abuse and galvanize public support for reform efforts. By bringing attention to the injustices perpetrated under current forfeiture practices, they create pressure on policymakers to take action.
In conclusion, while the victory in this lawsuit represents a significant step forward, there is still much work to be done to reform civil asset forfeiture laws fully. It is essential for lawmakers to heed the lessons of cases like this and prioritize the protection of individuals' rights and liberties. Only through concerted efforts can we move closer to a system that upholds justice and accountability while effectively combating crime.
Excellent article. May I suggest adding information about those advocacy groups fighting for this cause and how one could support them.