January 23, 2024

Federal Appeals Court Slams FBI’s Actions In Security Deposit Box Raid

Ninth Circuit panel unanimously orders FBI to destroy records it created during searches of US Private Vaults boxes

Paul and Jennifer Snitko thought their most precious possessions would be safe in a private security box company, until the FBI raided the company and seized innocent box renters’ property. But in January 2024, the Snitkos and other victims of the raid scored a big win at the 9th Circuit.
Paul and Jennifer Snitko thought their most precious possessions would be safe in a private security box company, until the FBI raided the company and seized innocent box renters’ property. But in January 2024, the Snitkos and other victims of the raid scored a big win at the 9th Circuit.

PASADENA, Calif.—This morning, a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously ruled against the government in a long-running class action lawsuit from the Institute for Justice (IJ) on behalf of people who rented security deposit boxes at US Private Vaults. The decision slammed the FBI for overstepping its authority when it opened up hundreds of renters’ boxes, conducted criminal searches of them all, and attempted to permanently keep everything in the boxes worth more than $5,000, all without charging any box renter with a crime.

“Today’s opinion draws a line in the sand, to ensure something like this never happens again,” said IJ Senior Attorney Rob Johnson. “If this had come out the other way, the government could have exported this raid as a model across the country. Now, the government is on notice its actions violated the Fourth Amendment.”

Judge Milan D. Smith, writing for the court, likened the FBI’s actions to the abuses that motivated the Bill of Rights: “[T]he government failed to explain why applying the inventory exception to this case would not open the door to the kinds of ‘writs of assistance’ the British authorities used prior to the Founding to conduct limitless searches of an individual’s personal belongings. It was those very abuses of power, after all, that led to adoption of the Fourth Amendment in the first place.”

“We knew that what the FBI did to us and so many others was wrong and today’s decision is a validation,” said Jennifer Snitko. “It took courage for Paul and I to be among the first people to stand up publicly and call out the government but we are proud to have fought for our rights. This is a good day for our country and the principle that the government’s power to search our property has limits.”

For years, the FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) insisted that they did nothing wrong at US Private Vaults. Even though the warrant authorizing the raid only permitted the FBI to open boxes to identify their owners and safeguard the contents, agents rummaged through hundreds of boxes, ran currency they found in front of drug sniffing dogs, and made copies of people’s most personal records. The DOJ then filed a massive administrative forfeiture claim to take more than $100 million in cash and other valuables, again, without charging any individual with a crime.

“The government promised the magistrate that it would not conduct a criminal search or seizure of the boxes,” said IJ Senior Attorney Robert Frommer. “After years of litigation, today’s opinion shows that not to be true. The government lied to justify its forfeiture scheme, and in the end the lie was its undoing.”  

The Institute for Justice is a national nonprofit law firm dedicated to upholding individual rights. IJ is joined in this case by local counsel Nilay Vora and Jeff Atteberry of The Vora Law Firm, P.C.

Share

More on 4th Amendment Project

4th Amendment Project

Institute for Justice Calls Flock Safety’s Proposed Reforms ‘Window Dressing’

Dan King · August 13, 2026

Cathy George stands outside a residential building with brick and arched windows, wearing a brown jacket.

4th Amendment Project

Atlanta Woman Sues Officers, U.S. Government for Wrongly Raiding Her Home in Search of Man Already in Jail

Andrew Wimer · April 14, 2026

4th Amendment Project

Ahead of Cheyenne City Council Meeting, Public Interest Law Firm Voices Opposition to Invasive Administrative Warrant Ordinance

Marlee Pricher · February 9, 2026