What are the chances the seized items are returned in its entirety to the owner?
The company was setup to maintain privacy. By it's nature, who owned what was ambiguous. There was none or no identifying information.
What's at issue is if the FBI could use the contents of these boxes to further prosecute previously unknown crimes. The lower court said yes, the upper court no.
The initial taking was legal, it's how the property was handled after the fact that ran afowl the law.
You could argue that having authorities that abuse their authority to self-serving ends renders that authority illegitimate, but by the admission of Anarcho-tyranny's own proponents (as a theory), they still recognize the existence of these "authorities", and just contest the governance decisions made by those authorities.
That's certainly a bad government, but to call it anarcho-anything is just downright confusing.
Emphasis mine. The Government failing to recognize it's own laws and founding principles absolutely qualifies as anarchy.
Anarchy as a state(1) of disorder predates Anarchy as a form of government for a state(2).
Anarchy 1530s, "absence of government," from French anarchie or directly from Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhia "lack of a leader, the state of people without a government" (in Athens, used of the Year of Thirty Tyrants, 404 B.C., when there was no archon), abstract noun from anarkhos "rulerless," from an- "without" (see an- (1)) + arkhos "leader" (see archon).
From 1660s as "confusion or absence of authority in general;" by 1849 in reference to the social theory advocating "order without power," with associations and co-operatives taking the place of direct government, as formulated in the 1830s by French political philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865).
It is this dysfunctionionality that makes free market oriented societies that place greater limits on the power of the state generally more prosperous than societies with significant government intervention, despite the latter theoretically being better able to address a litany of collective action problems.
The government doesn't have the bandwidth to move on collective action problems that people don't already have figured out by some other means, voting isn't a great tool for doing more than the really basic stuff like keeping a military and police force functional. And even for things like the military, private sector institutions are better at building all the components.
We have corporations (using a very wide definition that includes non-profit entities that are legally similar) that tackle every problem under the sun. You can't expect beat an entity that exists for the sole purpose of addressing a problem with a general purpose schizophrenic institution like a government.
So if someone had (say) $1000 in cash in there, they'd be told to pick out the bank notes or something.
At which point it's just gambling as to whether any particular bank note is going to get you arrested or not due to it having a bad history.
Maybe 10y ago I was robbed. The investigator who took my case, a month later, asked me if I had anything to drink that night. I said, yeah, one beer about 7hr earlier. He said that because I drank that night that would close the investigation and that was that.
Why are you lying or making up stuff? Even the raiding party's memo doesn't claim that:
The memo states that “[e]ach inventory [would] likely include the following”: the USPV box door with its lock, a form with emergency contact information, the physical deposit box, and the box’s contents.
Opinion by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/01/23/2...
In an indictment against U.S. Private Vaults, Inc., the U.S. attorney for Los Angeles accused the company of marketing itself deliberately to attract criminals, saying it brazenly promoted itself as a place customers could store valuables with confidence that tax authorities would be hard-pressed to learn their identities or what was stored in their locked boxes. To access the facility, customers needed no identification; it took just an eye and hand scan to unlock the door.
“We don’t even want to know your name,” it advertised, according to prosecutors.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-04-02/fbi-beve...
My understanding was the identifying info may placed by the customer inside the box, with the agreement being the box would not be opened by the hosts except under defined exceptions.
That’s a problem.
Not a good enough reason to violate people's rights.
Their gas pumps should be seized for investigation.
That is not the ruling at all
The FBI lied to the court system, and was never authorized to take the boxes at all, they were only authorized to secure them and identify the owners of the property to enable returning to those owners
That was all the original warrant authorized
Then after they executed that warrant, they then initiated (illegally) "inventory" procedures far beyond what was authorized by the court (warrant) and once inventoried further initiated (illegally) forfeiture proceedings of the property.
The original warrant only authorized the FBI to "take" aka seize property belonging to the company itself for the purposes of their criminal case everything beyond that was actually specifically barred in the actual warrant, which the FBI ignored and did what ever the hell they wanted anyway. It was further reveled that was their plan all along and they deceived the court from day 1.
I already know the answer, but still…
https://ij.org/press-release/innocent-security-deposit-box-r...
Well it make sense when you understand that the FBI is not about seeking "justice", it is about enforcement and punishment.
The process is their goal, to make peoples lives miserable and to do "street justice" not to win in the court system and get a conviction
Further in this case, was also "Policing for Profit" which is what the entire civil asset forfeiture scheme is about.
This naive view that the FBI, or law enforcement in general, today is about "protecting the public" and "getting justice for victims" is laughably absurd