Woman May Lose $8,000 To Police Even Though She Was Never Charged With A Crime

The case is called the United States of America v. $8,040 U.S. Currency, but it’s Cristal Starling’s money that is at stake; money she saved to purchase a food truck in Rochester, New York—money she may lose even though she’s never been charged with a crime. Cristal is yet another sad example of how civil forfeiture is used to take away the precious property of innocent Americans, often those least able to fight for what is rightfully theirs.

Cristal has lived in Rochester most of her life, working in as a home-health aid and in the food service industry. During warmer months, she operates a mobile food cart. Although she plans to start nursing school later this year, she also wants to upgrade to a food truck to better support herself and her young grandnephew, whom she has raised since he was an infant.

Cristal’s nightmare started when Rochester police raided her apartment in 2020. The police searched her home, finding $7,500 in a drawer and another $540 in a pair of Cristal’s pants. They arrested her then-boyfriend because they found drugs at a different residence tied to him. The police seized Cristal’s work truck and personal vehicle along with her cash.

While Cristal was able to get her vehicles back, the Rochester police handed the cash over to the Drug Enforcement Administration. While the DEA started federal civil forfeiture procedures to take the money, the case against Cristal’s ex-boyfriend fell apart and he was acquitted by a jury.

Cristal presumed she would get her money back, especially since she herself had never been charged with a crime and it was all her money. But instead of returning all her cash, the government wanted to keep half. Cristal, knowing she had done nothing wrong, decided to fight for her life savings.

Unlike in criminal cases, property owners are not granted a government-appointed attorney in civil forfeiture cases. Cristal shopped around for a lawyer but soon discovered it would cost her $5,000 to get legal representation; she may get her money back, only to hand over most of it to an attorney. Undaunted, she decided to try to navigate the maze of forfeiture procedures herself.

Unfortunately for her, federal civil forfeiture is a labyrinth that even experienced attorneys find confusing. Throughout the process, there are dead ends where property owners can lose their right to fight for what is rightfully theirs. This makes getting to the end of the maze with all of your money—especially without an attorney—practically impossible.

Cristal missed a filing deadline and while she pleaded with a judge to allow her case to move forward, the court ruled that her money was forfeited to the government by default. She never got the opportunity to prove that it was her money and that it had no connection to drugs.

U.S. v. $8,040 went the way of the vast majority of civil forfeiture cases. According to IJ’s most recent edition of Policing for Profit, 90% of civil forfeitures are won administratively, meaning the government never had to make its case in court.

Cristal’s case also demonstrates the problems with the federal “equitable sharing” program. Cristal’s money was seized by Rochester police, but they did not try to use New York’s civil forfeiture procedures to take her money. Although New York’s laws are not very protective of property owners (Policing for Profit gives the state a grade of “C”), they are still better than the federal procedures. For instance, under New York law, Rochester police could only keep 60% of Cristal’s money. But through equitable sharing, the federal government would return up to 80% of proceeds to the local police, pocketing 20% for itself.

Sadly, nearly a year and a half into his administration, President Joe Biden has not reinstated reforms made in the Obama years to eliminate forfeiture “adoptions”—where the federal government adopts such forfeitures then splits the money with local law enforcement under the equitable sharing program. These transparent attempts to get around more restrictive state laws were once again permitted by President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

To fix this problem once and for all, Congress should pass the bipartisan FAIR Act. The legislation would restrict the use of the equitable sharing program to ensure it can’t be used to circumvent state law. It would also raise the level of proof necessary for the federal government to seize property and place the burden of proof on the government to prove a property owner had knowledge of criminal activity. A it stands now; civil forfeiture turns the idea of being presumed innocent on its head.

The Institute for Justice represents Cristal and is appealing her case. No one should lose their property to the government through forfeiture without being convicted of a crime, much less without any opportunity to be heard by a judge. It would be a terrible injustice to take away the resources she needs to provide a better life for herself and her grandnephew. And after all, who needs and deserves the $8,400 in question more: the federal government or an innocent woman looking to better her life through her own thrift and hard work?