WASHINGTON—A legal challenge to FBI forfeiture notices that do not clearly state what crimes a property owner has committed will end after the suit was dismissed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Linda Martin nearly lost her savings after the FBI seized her security deposit box in a raid on a Beverly Hills business in 2021. After filing her lawsuit with the Institute for Justice (IJ), the government returned Linda’s money. But the class action lawsuit continued to challenge the unconstitutional civil forfeiture practices of the FBI.
“The FBI took Linda’s savings without clearly saying what she did wrong. That shouldn’t happen in America, but taking on the entrenched federal civil forfeiture system is challenging,” said IJ Attorney Bob Belden. “Unfortunately, there is not a clear path to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. We know that several Justices are alarmed at how civil forfeiture works in America and hope that the right case will work its way to the Court.”
“I wish my lawsuit could have prevented others from getting stuck in the same unjust system that trapped me,” said Linda. “The government should not be able to take your money and hold onto it indefinitely when it can’t even say what you did wrong.”
In March 2021, the FBI raided US Private Vaults with a warrant that explicitly directed agents not to conduct a criminal search or seizure of individual customers’ boxes. They were just supposed to identify owners so they could claim their property. But the FBI instead acted on its months-old plan to search and try to forfeit the contents of any box worth more than $5,000.
That’s all the agency really knew about the customers: that they had property worth forfeiting. It didn’t have any idea if owners had broken any law. But with dollar signs in its eyes, the FBI pressed on, sending out notices to hundreds of customers from whom it wanted to forfeit over $100 million in cash, gold, and other valuables. Although those notices indirectly refer to hundreds of federal crimes, they didn’t tell anyone what the government thought they specifically did wrong.
That’s what happened to Linda. When she got the notice saying the FBI intended to take her $40,200, she was left utterly bewildered. Lacking any idea about why the government took her money, Linda unwittingly filed a petition that gave the FBI free rein to decide if it will return any of her money. Nearly two years later, Linda had not been charged with a crime and there was no indication that her savings would be returned.
In addition to seeking the return of Linda’s money, the lawsuit sought to halt administrative forfeiture proceedings for everyone who had received one of the FBI’s deficient notices. The Fifth Amendment requires the government to provide specific factual and legal reasons for forfeiture. However, the D.C. Circuit dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
This marks the end of IJ’s legal challenges to the FBI’s US Private Vaults raid. This was the second of four lawsuits filed challenging the constitutionality of the raid, the forfeiture process, and seeking the return of property lost by the FBI. IJ’s first legal challenge shielded multiple box holders from civil forfeiture and resulted in a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that said the FBI overstepped its warrant and violated the Constitution. The government did not appeal that ruling. Two additional lawsuits successfully compensated individuals for valuables—gold coins and cash—that were lost after their boxes were seized.