FBI’s Unconstitutional Search of Safe Deposit Boxes Ruled by Federal Appeals Court
In a recent ruling, a federal appeals court determined that the FBI had exceeded its constitutional authority when it conducted warrantless searches of hundreds of safe deposit boxes in 2021. The court compared the FBI’s tactics to the indiscriminate searches that led to the creation of the Bill of Rights.
The controversy began in March 2021 when the FBI raided U.S. Private Vaults, a safe deposit box company located in Beverly Hills, California. The company attracted clients who valued anonymity and privacy, including gambling rings, drug operations, and individuals who preferred storing their valuables outside of traditional banks.
During the raid, the FBI seized millions of dollars in cash, along with various items such as jewelry, personal effects, and important documents like wills and prenuptial agreements.
Victims of the raid filed a lawsuit in federal district court in May 2021, arguing that the FBI’s search blatantly violated their Fourth Amendment rights. However, in October 2022, the trial judge ruled that there was no Fourth Amendment violation.
On Tuesday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the lower court’s decision. The court concluded that the FBI had gone beyond the scope of the warrant obtained prior to the raid, which explicitly did not authorize any “criminal search or seizure” of the actual contents of the deposit boxes.
The court found that the FBI’s warrant application had omitted crucial details of the raid plan, including instructions from the special agent in charge to open every box, collect fingerprint evidence, inventory the contents, and have drug dogs sniff all cash.
The 9th Circuit panel expressed strong disapproval during oral arguments in December. One judge described the FBI’s search without probable cause as “egregious” and “outrageous,” while another likened it to the controversial “general warrants” and “writs of assistance” issued during colonial times.
The court’s opinion echoed these concerns, emphasizing that the government’s failure to explain why its arguments would not lead to limitless searches of personal belongings was particularly troubling. It noted that such abuses of power were the very reason the Fourth Amendment was adopted.
Five days after the oral arguments, the government attempted to avoid a precedent-setting ruling by filing a motion asking the 9th Circuit to order the destruction of records related to the FBI’s search. This sudden change surprised plaintiffs’ attorneys, who viewed it as an attempt to conceal a significant constitutional violation.
However, the government did not admit any flaws in the FBI’s raid. Instead, it argued that it wanted to prevent a published judicial opinion that would impugn the actions or motivations of law enforcement in this unique case involving a company facilitating criminal activity through anonymous safe-deposit boxes.
In its ruling, the 9th Circuit not only confirmed the government’s fears but also ordered the FBI to destroy all records of the search, including copies in its evidence databases.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California declined to comment on the specifics of the ruling but stated that they were prepared to comply with the plaintiffs’ request to destroy the inventory search records.
Rob Johnson, an attorney at the Institute for Justice representing the plaintiffs, described the ruling as drawing a line in the sand. He emphasized that if the ruling had gone the other way, it could have set a precedent for similar raids across the country. Now, the government is on notice that its actions violated the Fourth Amendment.
