On Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the seizure of 700 safety deposit boxes through civil asset forfeiture exceeded the provided warrant, infringing on the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure. The case traces back to 2021 when the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) secured a warrant to investigate a storage facility in Beverly Hills, California, linked to US Private Vaults for alleged money laundering.
The FBI initially stated it would retain the safety deposit boxes and their contents tied to the case via the process of civil asset forfeiture. However, not all the seized boxes were linked to the investigation, and owners unrelated to the investigation struggled to reclaim their property. The FBI ultimately returned the deposit boxes to unrelated owners.
In 2022, some safety deposit box owners sued the FBI to compel the agency to either destroy or return records associated with the searches of their boxes. The United States District Court for the Central District of California initially ruled in favor of the FBI, asserting the search and seizure under the inventory search doctrine exception to the Fourth Amendment.
The appellate court reversed the lower court’s decision, noting that the FBI’s action overstepped the original warrant’s scope and that the agency had failed to adhere to its written policies. The appellate panel highlighted that the specially formulated instructions for this particular facility search deviated from the FBI’s standard policy and exceeded the bounds of the inventory search doctrine.
Civil asset forfeiture, the method that allows law enforcement to initiate proceedings to keep or sell property believed to be connected with a crime, has been under the spotlight recently. Owners are not required to be charged or convicted for this forfeiture to occur, and the burden of justification typically shifts to them. Some states even allow law enforcement to retain the money raised from civil asset forfeiture, while the federal Equitable Sharing Program permits the sharing of these proceeds with local law enforcement.
The appellate court sent the landmark case back to the district court for further proceedings. This ruling will likely serve as a crucial reference for further cases involving civil asset forfeiture in the United States.