Forbes by Andrew Wimer Institute For Justice 12/11/2023
FBI agents showed up at the Beverly Hills location of US Private Vaults in March 2021 with a warrant and a squad of agents. Over the coming days, the agents would crack open hundreds of individual security deposit boxes. Cash in the boxes was run by drug dogs. Documents were photographed. Precious coins, jewelry, and casino chips were bagged as evidence.
Agents breathlessly told local media they had foiled a criminal operation and uncovered contraband. But across Los Angeles, people who had done nothing wrong found out that their property was in the hands of the FBI.
Joseph Ruiz showed up during the raid to get money out of his box but was turned away empty handed. Linda Martin found out about the raid when her husband Reggie saw the report on evening news. Paul Snitko read about it the next day online.
In the coming weeks, none of these people would be charged with a crime, but none of them would be able to get their boxes back either. Joseph and Linda were eventually told that the government was trying to take the cash in their boxes permanently.
Almost immediately anonymous box renters began to sue the government for their property. However, Paul, his wife Jennifer, Joseph, and Tyler Gothier became the first US Private Vaults customers to launch a lawsuit in their own names. They were soon joined by others in the federal class action lawsuit opposing the seizures on the ground that the raid violated the Fourth Amendment.
And while a federal district judge overseeing the Institute for Justice (IJ) lawsuit stopped the government from using civil forfeiture to take cash and valuables from the plaintiffs, he refused to hold that the FBI violated the Fourth Amendment. All the records collected by the government—photos of sensitive wills, trusts, and medical records—remain in FBI files to this day.
But that may soon change. Last week, the Institute for Justice argued the case in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. And a panel of judges—Carlos Bea, Milan D. Smith, Jr., and Lawrence VanDyke—seemed astounded by the FBI’s actions in the case.
It will likely be months before a decision is handed down. However, in a good sign for the innocent box renters, the judges seemed concerned not with whether to rule in favor of the property owners, but only how far such a ruling should go. Judge VanDyke even asked IJ’s attorney what could be done to “deter the bad behavior.”
A strong ruling against the government could prevent future abuses. The FBI certainly had a powerful incentive to open the boxes. The tens of millions of dollars it hoped to take would go into accounts controlled by law enforcement. The panel of judges should rule that the raid violated the Fourth Amendment and stop the FBI before it commits another “armed robbery” at another security deposit box company.
More:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2023/12/11/court-grills-government-over-86m-fbi-raid-on-security-deposit-boxes/?sh=387188e459e1 
