It's more complicated than that. The reason for the raid in the first place was because the FBI suspected (correctly) that the owners of this lockbox company knowingly facilitated money laundering.
The company was setup to maintain privacy. By it's nature, who owned what was ambiguous. There was none or no identifying information.
What's at issue is if the FBI could use the contents of these boxes to further prosecute previously unknown crimes. The lower court said yes, the upper court no.
The initial taking was legal, it's how the property was handled after the fact that ran afowl the law.
The company was setup to maintain privacy. By it's nature, who owned what was ambiguous. There was none or no identifying information.
What's at issue is if the FBI could use the contents of these boxes to further prosecute previously unknown crimes. The lower court said yes, the upper court no.
The initial taking was legal, it's how the property was handled after the fact that ran afowl the law.