3 ms·
They should not have been granted a warrant allowing them to seize anything except "this thing owned by this person, who is the subject of an active investigati
by salawat 4y ago
They should not have been granted a warrant allowing them to seize anything except "this thing owned by this person, who is the subject of an active investigation into Z".
General warrants "confiscate all these things" are not constitutionally valid.
- pdonis 4y agoThe Fourth Amendment says a warrant has to specify the particular things to be searched and seized. The warrant in this case, since it said "seize all safe deposit boxes stored in UPV's vaults", was fine as far as that goes. The part of the warrant that makes it inconsistent is where it says the FBI can follow "standard inventory procedures", which are inconsistent with the above specification of what is to be seized, at least as the FBI decided to implement them, since that included opening each box and making a list of its contents.
- salawat 4y agoIt is not enough to get a warrant for "I want that, there". You must specify and affirm in connection to what, and "drug dealers might be using it", if approved, should be grounds for seriously questioning that judge's commitment to protecting the People from Law Enforcement overreach.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- pdonis 4y ago> You must specify and affirm in connection to what The FBI did that: they said they suspect UPV of engaging in, and facilitating, criminal activity, so they wanted to seize the boxes in UPV's possession. But that, in itself, did not justify opening every single box; it only justified seizing the boxes and holding them.