[HN Gopher] Judge finds no rights violations in FBI seizure Beve...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Judge finds no rights violations in FBI seizure Beverly Hills safe-
       deposit boxes
        
       Author : tomohawk
       Score  : 62 points
       Date   : 2022-12-03 20:02 UTC (2 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.latimes.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.latimes.com)
        
       | kodah wrote:
       | > The warrant request omitted a central part of the FBI's plan:
       | permanent confiscation of everything inside any box containing at
       | least $5,000 in cash or goods, a senior FBI agent recently
       | testified.
       | 
       | We really need to have a reset on law enforcement in this
       | country. I don't think anyone's happy with the police anymore,
       | federal or otherwise.
        
         | tptacek wrote:
         | That's manifestly untrue. There's probably a way to write that
         | sentence to make it much less trivial to refute, but it will
         | make a claim much more specific than "nobody is happy with the
         | police". As written right now, the opposite is closer
         | (somewhat) to the truth.
        
         | tstrimple wrote:
         | We tried that. Half the country worships the police as long as
         | they aren't hurting them personally.
        
           | phpisthebest wrote:
           | >>We tried that.
           | 
           | No, no we have not. any bipartisan moderate reforms are
           | quickly loaded down with hyper partisan amendments from both
           | the left and right killing any bill
           | 
           | this happens to almost all legislation today
        
           | krapp wrote:
           | We haven't really tried that. We've made token attempts at
           | it, mostly for the sake of optics, but actually trying it
           | would require a revolution and civil war, because the complex
           | of white supremacy, fascism and oligarchy which breeds the
           | corruption of America's justice system needs to be utterly
           | torn down and rebuilt from the ground up, around principles
           | many Americans would find deeply uncomfortable, and American
           | culture needs to be deprogrammed out of its fetishistic love
           | of authoritarian violence and hatred of empathy and society,
           | and that system and culture will violently resist all
           | attempts at change at all levels, and by all means.
        
           | Grim-444 wrote:
           | This comment is pretty much the definition of a straw-man
           | argument. You're presenting an extreme opinion as the opinion
           | of hundreds of millions of human beings. Just adding to the
           | hate in the world.
        
             | iudqnolq wrote:
             | Police routinely abuse the public [1]. Yet about half of
             | America believes major changes to policing aren't needed,
             | and about half of America believes we shouldn't reduce the
             | budget of police departments and shift to social programs
             | [2].
             | 
             | 1: https://twitter.com/search?q=cops%20common%20from%3Agreg
             | _dou...
             | 
             | 2: https://news.gallup.com/poll/393119/americans-remain-
             | steadfa...
        
             | Spivak wrote:
             | I always enjoy seeing this line of reasoning because it
             | seems completely unique to people in tech. A group is not a
             | set of individuals, or at least that's what's meant when
             | non-tech people talk about them. When the parent says "half
             | the country" they don't mean "the set of all people who
             | worship the police is around 150 million" they mean "the
             | political body that is backed by around half the country
             | has chosen to adopt as a core tenant an uncritical support
             | of police."
        
       | LatteLazy wrote:
       | https://archive.ph/BhmFS/again?url=https://www.latimes.com/c...
       | 
       | Old news (Sept).
        
       | allears wrote:
       | Paywall.
        
         | ccrush wrote:
         | archive it with archive.ph which has no cookies and gets a free
         | trial every time it archives a page
        
       | KingMachiavelli wrote:
       | This seems very strange so maybe the article is leaving something
       | out but if a warrant for X but not Y can still lead to
       | confiscating Y, then what actually limits the power of warrants?
       | 
       | > In their warrant request, the FBI and U.S. attorney's office
       | asked U.S. Magistrate Judge Steve Kim for permission to seize the
       | store's racks of safe-deposit boxes for forfeiture, but "not
       | their contents."
       | 
       | > The warrant request omitted a central part of the FBI's plan:
       | permanent confiscation of everything inside any box containing at
       | least $5,000 in cash or goods, a senior FBI agent recently
       | testified.
       | 
       | Is the crucial detail that the cash/goods lack any protection
       | under the law? If there was a written and notarized murder
       | confession in a box would that be permissible in court? I
       | _thought_ anything taken /found outside the scope of the warrant
       | would be impermissible. Is the cash now _impermissible_ for
       | prosecuting actual crimes? (i.e. FBI can just keep it and make
       | the owner sue for its return).
        
         | notch656a wrote:
         | It's been awhile since I read it. I was thinking the judge
         | authorized the FBI to itemize the contents of the boxes "for
         | their return" or something of the sort. No idea what happens if
         | police legally obtain access to evidence of a crime as a
         | byproduct of a warrant, although I imagine for a non-publicized
         | case it would not be good for the defendent. [note: not a
         | lawyer]
        
         | cperciva wrote:
         | Never mind murder confessions -- what happens if there's
         | legally privileged information in a safe deposit box? Seizing
         | documents without providing any opportunity to litigate
         | privilege is a legal Pandora's box.
        
           | tptacek wrote:
           | This happens all the time in searches, and, unsurprisingly,
           | there's a bunch of very well-defined processes in the DOJ for
           | handling privileged information found in searches. You should
           | follow Ken White's podcast and Twitter feed if this is an
           | interesting topic for you.
        
         | Spivak wrote:
         | > I thought anything taken/found outside the scope of the
         | warrant would be impermissible.
         | 
         | That isn't true in general, the supreme court has a test for
         | whether things outside the warrant can be seized / not
         | constitute an unconstitutional search.
         | 
         | 1. Must be in plain sight.
         | 
         | 2. Must be apparent that it was used in a crime.
         | 
         | 3. Doesn't have to be accidentally or inadvertently found but
         | if it's not the bar for it being a legal search is much higher.
         | 
         | Since it's a safety deposit box 1 & 3 are pretty much already
         | checked and I think falls down on 2. I can't possibly see how
         | the existence of cash is apparent that it's used in a crime.
        
         | bewaretheirs wrote:
         | There is a "plain view doctrine" which says that obvious
         | contraband or evidence spotted during a legal search for
         | something else can also be seized.
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_view_doctrine
        
       | notch656a wrote:
       | Keeping things in an anonymous safe-deposit box is in general a
       | terrible idea.
       | 
       | They are magnets for thieves, police, usually in urban area where
       | a PI can easily follow you and even when acting fully within the
       | law it could unintentionally look very bad if you are in the
       | middle of some proceedings.
       | 
       | A hole in the ground is probably preferable 99 times out of 100.
        
         | trevyn wrote:
         | Any best practices for holes in the ground? I can imagine that
         | metal detectors and various animals change the threat model,
         | but I suspect there are also unknown unknowns at play here.
        
           | 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
           | I always assumed the best strategy would be PVC plumbing
           | pipe. You can get 4inch (10cm) diameter sizes cut to any
           | length. Stuff your cash/jewels/drugs + desiccant and use PVC
           | sealant caps with waterproof sealant. Bury as deep as you
           | want. I would expect that to last decades. Plus it should not
           | set off any metal detectors.
        
             | andrewinardeer wrote:
             | Why wouldn't the jewellery set off thr metal detectors?
        
           | LinuxBender wrote:
           | _unknowns at play here_
           | 
           | This sounds like a fun thought exercise. No idea who we are
           | protecting against but some factors might be:
           | 
           | - Moisture. The containers need to be completely sealed from
           | moisture and have resistance to acid from the soil.
           | 
           | - Metal detector. Perhaps this could be mitigated using a
           | skid-steer with an auger drill attachment? Some of the larger
           | skid-steers can use an 80 inch bit. Excavators can use even
           | larger bits and drill at angles to get under solid objects.
           | Rock auger bits can get through some rocks. Layers of gravel
           | might obscure detection from ground penetrating radar.
           | 
           | - Location should be obfuscated by trees to avoid satellite
           | and aircraft imaging from Keyhole/Google/Others.
           | 
           | - Accessibility. If there is a few feed of rocks above the
           | container and a rope passes through the rocks, then retrieval
           | is less likely to damage the container and one would not need
           | dig as deep for extraction.
           | 
           | - Drill numerous holes and find some other use for them
           | whilst singing _One of these things is not like the other_
        
             | jstarfish wrote:
             | Re: moisture, you also need to account for condensation
             | forming inside the box as your seal fails.
             | 
             | For anti-metal detection, ideal spot would be atop/near a
             | buried junkyard. Once they've gone to the trouble of
             | excavating a rusted Dodge Neon, interlopers are not
             | inclined to dig there again.
        
         | dzonga wrote:
         | the fact you separate thieves and police as separate entities
         | is funny. I tend to put them under the same bracket. only that
         | thieves have a full time to steal, whereas for police thieving
         | is an auxiliary activity
        
         | mikeyouse wrote:
         | I feel for the honest people using the service from the article
         | but when you store your valuables in private safe deposit boxes
         | owned by a criminal who advertised his safe deposit boxes as a
         | way to store the proceeds of crimes, you're gonna have a bad
         | time.
        
       | chriscappuccio wrote:
       | Search warrants allow you to search an area that might reasonably
       | contain the items listed in the warrant. Once they are in the
       | safe deposit box, it sounds as if they are using civil asset
       | forfeiture to steal the money.
       | 
       | Not long ago people were joking on Steve Lehto's YouTube videos
       | that the police might as well do forfeiture on armored cars. In
       | California, the police started doing exactly that. You can hear
       | them lamenting in one case that they only seized $300,000 and not
       | the $1,000,000 they were expecting. This practice is being fought
       | but it is still common in the US for police to seize assets just
       | because they feel the assets might have been used in a crime, or
       | might be proceeds of a crime. No criminal charges are necessary,
       | and you have to sue to get assets back.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-12-03 23:01 UTC)