UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PAUL SNITKO; JENNIFER No. 22-56050 SNITKO; JOSEPH RUIZ; TYLER GOTHIER; JENI VERDON- D.C. No. PEARSONS; MICHAEL STORC; 2:21-cv-04405- TRAVIS MAY, RGK-MAR

Plaintiffs-Appellants, OPINION v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; E. MARTIN ESTRADA, in his official capacity as Acting United States Attorney for the Central District of California; DONALD ALWAY, in his official capacity as an Assistant Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 7, 2023 Pasadena, California 2 SNITKO V. USA

Filed January 23, 2024

Before: CARLOS T. BEA, MILAN D. SMITH, JR., and LAWRENCE VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.; Concurrence by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.; Partial Concurrence by Judge VanDyke

SUMMARY *

Fourth Amendment/Inventory Searches

The panel reversed the district court’s judgment holding that plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights were not violated when the FBI “inventoried” 700 safe deposit boxes at US Private Vaults (USPV), and remanded for the FBI to sequester or destroy the records of its inventory search pertaining to the class members. USPV operated a business which rented safe deposit boxes to customers. The government obtained a warrant to search and seize USPV’s facilities, including its safe deposit boxes, as part of its investigation of USPV for various criminal activities. The warrant explicitly did not authorize a criminal search or seizure of box contents, and required agents to follow their written policies to inventory items and

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. SNITKO V. USA 3

contact box owners so that they could claim their property after the search. Following the seizure of their property, plaintiffs filed suit alleging claims for return of property pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(b) and violations of their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. Although plaintiffs’ property was returned, they continued to seek equitable relief requiring the government to return or destroy records of the inventory search. The district court denied plaintiffs’ requested relief, finding that the government’s “inventory” of the safe deposit contents was a constitutionally proper inventory search. In Part I of its analysis, the panel held that the inventory search doctrine, an exception to the warrant requirement that allows authorities to search items within their lawful custody, did not apply. One of the most important features of the doctrine is the existence of standardized instructions, which limit the discretion of officers and apply consistently across cases. Here, in support of its warrant application, the government, in addition to submitting standardized instructions, also submitted Supplemental Instructions that were designed specifically for the USPV raid. The panel held that the Supplemental Instructions took this case out of the realm of a standardized “inventory” procedure. In Part II of its analysis, the panel held that the government exceeded the scope of the warrant, which did not authorize a criminal search or seizure of the contents of the safe deposit boxes. Concurring, Judge M. Smith wrote separately to address plaintiffs’ additional argument that the origins and rationale of the inventory search doctrine makes it inapplicable to safe deposit boxe