A federal appeals court ruled last week that the FBI violated the constitutional rights of civilians when it seized the contents of hundreds of safe deposit boxes during a 2021 raid on a Beverly Hills business on suspicion of money laundering. handed down a judgment.
“This was a huge victory not only for our clients, but also for the hundreds of people who have been trapped in a nightmare for years because of the FBI’s actions,” said a lawyer representing several plaintiffs. said Rob Frommer, a senior prosecutor at the Institute of Justice. He spoke to Fox News about the incident.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that by opening and cataloging the contents of 1,400 safe deposit boxes without a separate criminal warrant, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has waived the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures by U.S. private safe deposit box owners. It was determined that the rights of the law had been violated.
The Jan. 23 ruling reversed a 2022 lower court ruling that sided with the FBI and required federal authorities to destroy inventory records for hundreds of box owners who have not been charged with a crime. .
Investigators took approximately $86 million in cash from the boxes during the March 2021 raid, as well as a trove of jewelry, gold bars, coins, silver and other valuables.
In May of that year, the FBI “initiated administrative forfeiture proceedings” against an unspecified number of boxes, according to court documents filed by the government.
Civil asset forfeiture is a process in which the government seizes money or other property believed to be related to a crime, even if the owner has not been charged with a crime.
The FBI raid on a private U.S. storage facility was part of an investigation into the company, which was eventually shut down and pled guilty to conspiracy to launder drug money.
The government argued in the Ninth Circuit that the warrant authorized the FBI to seize safe deposit boxes and catalog their contents according to standardized policies.
Los Angeles Times (via Getty Images)
But in unsealed court documents, both the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office told a judge in a warrant request that they plan to seize the contents of all boxes containing at least $5,000 in cash and personal items. This shows that they did not communicate this.
The warrant only authorized authorities to seize business computers, currency counting machines, and surveillance equipment.
The judge also authorized the seizure of the safe deposit box and keys, but specifically stated that agents would only “examine the contents of the box to determine the owner…so that the property may be claimed.” “I do,” the warrant reads. Criminal investigations and seizures of the contents of safe deposit boxes are not permitted. ”
Los Angeles Times (via Getty Images)
The Ninth Circuit panel said in its decision that the government exceeded the scope of the warrant and violated its own rules to inventory property not covered by the warrant.
Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith Jr. said the government’s failure to account for the limits of this type of inventory search was “particularly troubling,” calling it “particularly troubling” and not unlike any previous “unrestricted search of an individual’s personal property.” ” and wondered what the difference was. in colonial America.
“After all, it was precisely these abuses of power that led to the adoption of the Fourth Amendment in the first place,” Smith wrote.
Jenni Pearsons, one of the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit, said she was “incredibly happy” about the victory.
“Hearing the judges just hammer the nail on the head and discuss the situation, this extraordinary overreach, the actual violation of civil rights… it was really, really gratifying,” she told Fox News.
Pearsons and her husband, Michael Stork, had $20,000 in silver and $2,000 in cash seized from a rented safe deposit box during the raid.
She said she worked with the Institute of Justice to fight for the property and ultimately won, but when she tried to retrieve the $2,000, the FBI discovered it was missing.
“I think the FBI is keeping a close eye on this case,” Pearsons said. “And if they continue with the civil forfeiture process, I hope they put structures in place so that it’s transparent and it’s not just a free-for-all.”
“It’s all freedom in a ridiculous defense,” Pearsons added.
But Frommer said the ruling helped.e“It exposes the government’s attempts to steal the property of innocent people.” He doesn’t think it will end civil forfeiture abuses.
Anadolu Agency (via Getty Images)
“I think the ruling itself is important, but I don’t think it will stop the FBI from taking control,” he told Fox News. “Yes, now they’ve been slapped on the hand. But unless they actually get results, they’ll see this as a dry run for next time.”
The FBI declined to comment on the ruling.
Tom Mrozek, a spokesman for the Los Angeles U.S. Attorney’s Office, declined to comment on the ruling, but said prosecutors are “prepared to destroy inventory records, which is the relief sought by the plaintiffs in this case.” ” he said.
