Cristal Starling’s experience with civil forfeiture serves as a stark reminder of the urgent need for reform. House Resolution 1525, known as the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (FAIR) Act, aims to address the widespread abuses in civil forfeiture cases. This bipartisan effort seeks to curb the unjust seizure of property without convicting individuals of any crime. By understanding the loopholes in existing federal laws and the proposed reforms, we can work towards ensuring due process and protecting property owners’ rights.
The Flawed System of Civil Forfeiture:
Civil forfeiture allows the government to seize and retain assets, including cash and property, without securing a criminal conviction. Originating in medieval times and gaining traction during the “war on drugs” in the 1970s, civil forfeiture laws in the United States often prioritize asset seizure over guilt or innocence. Unfortunately, innocent property owners like Cristal Starling can become victims of this flawed system.
Cristal Starling’s Case:
When the police conducted a predawn raid on Starling’s apartment in Rochester, New York, they found no drugs but discovered her cash during their search. Despite no evidence of her involvement in any criminal activity, the police seized her hard-earned money. Starling, a hot dog stand owner who was saving to buy a food truck, never anticipated losing her funds in this unjust manner.
The Loopholes in Jurisdiction:
Starling’s mistaken assumptions about the legal battle she would face were the result of jurisdictional loopholes. Through the equitable sharing program established in 1984, state and local agencies can partner with federal prosecutors to bypass state laws and exploit federal forfeiture rules. This process deprives property owners of the protections offered by state legislation and denies them their due process rights.
The FAIR Act: Proposed Reforms:
Representatives Tim Walberg (R-Michigan) and Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland) reintroduced House Resolution 1525, the FAIR Act, on March 9. This critical legislation seeks to rectify the flaws in civil forfeiture practices. One significant provision of the FAIR Act is the abolition of federal equitable sharing, which would empower state legislatures to enact similar reforms independently. States like Arizona, Maryland, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Ohio have already taken steps to limit asset transfers to the federal government, safeguarding property owners’ rights.
Challenges and the Need for Federal Reform:
While several states have made progress, no state has yet completely prohibited equitable sharing. Law enforcement agencies often rely on the revenue generated through this practice, making it difficult to dismantle the system entirely. A national report from the Institute for Justice titled “Policing for Profit” reveals that equitable sharing payments exceeded $8.8 billion between 2000 and 2019. Federal reform is necessary to ensure an end to these abuses and protect individuals like Cristal Starling.
Cristal Starling’s experience illustrates the urgent need for the FAIR Act and comprehensive federal reform of civil forfeiture laws. By addressing the jurisdictional loopholes and focusing on due process, we can protect the rights of innocent property owners. It is essential to advocate for the FAIR Act to restore the presumption of innocence, fair judicial process, and the opportunity for property owners to be heard. Only through meaningful reform can we rectify the flaws in civil forfeiture practices and protect the rights of individuals like Cristal Starling.
