This doctrine can't possibly apply in this case, because something that is inside a locked safe deposit box can't possibly be in "plain view".
Based on reading what appears to be the judge's actual opinion in the case (I've posted a link upthread), the excuse the FBI offered, and which the judge accepted, was that they had to open the boxes in order to "inventory the contents". But they also said they would only search the boxes to the extent required to identify their owners. From what I can gather, each box was contained in a "sleeve" which, in many cases, had a form in it, that could be read without opening the box, that identified the box's owner. Since each box was locked, the FBI could have simply made an inventory that, for each box, said "one safe deposit box, number #X, locked, contents unknown", with an additional note that either said "form found identifying box owner as A", or "no form found identifying box owner".
In other words, the FBI relied on an inconsistency in the warrant: it said they did not have permission to seize the contents of the boxes, but it also said they could follow "standard inventory policy", which in turn contained provisions that could be interpreted inconsistently to both require an inventory of the contents and to only authorize a search to the extent needed to identify the owner, if possible. This certainly seems to me to violate the Fourth Amendment.
In the case of boxes which were accompanied by a form identifying the owner, what obviously should have happened was that the FBI should have done nothing more with those boxes until the owner could be investigated to see if there was probable cause to think they had put evidence of a crime in the box. If there was, an additional warrant could be obtained to search that box. If not, the box could just be returned, unopened, to the owner. (In fact, the boxes of many plaintiffs were returned during the course of this lawsuit--but not unopened.)
In the case of boxes which were not accompanied by a form identifying the owner, the question would be whether that in itself was probable cause to think the box might contain evidence of a crime. In any case, that would be a question to be properly addressed by applying for an additional warrant.
So I think there were several rights violations here: first, the judge who approved the warrant should have spotted the inconsistency in what the FBI was asking for and resolved it; second, the FBI should have adopted an inventory policy that was consistent; and third, the judge in this ruling should not have let the FBI get away with what they actually did.
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.
The 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.
It 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.
> 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.
You seem to be applying logic whereas if logic mattered this never would have occurred in the first place. Of course they can and will make these types of arguments.
> Of course they can and will make these types of arguments.
The legal argument I'm criticizing is not the FBI's, but the judge's. The judge said the FBI didn't violate anyone's rights because they followed "standard inventory procedures", and the warrant allowed them to do that. The judge did not even address the fact that that provision of the warrant was inconsistent with the basis on which the warrant was issued and with the warrant's specification of what was to be seized, namely, the boxes, not their contents.
This judgment should be reversed on appeal on those grounds.
If you get a warrant to just take possession of a safe deposit box, and the warrant doesn't permit you to open and search it, on what grounds do you justify searching it for a gun?
Based on reading what appears to be the judge's actual opinion in the case (I've posted a link upthread), the excuse the FBI offered, and which the judge accepted, was that they had to open the boxes in order to "inventory the contents". But they also said they would only search the boxes to the extent required to identify their owners. From what I can gather, each box was contained in a "sleeve" which, in many cases, had a form in it, that could be read without opening the box, that identified the box's owner. Since each box was locked, the FBI could have simply made an inventory that, for each box, said "one safe deposit box, number #X, locked, contents unknown", with an additional note that either said "form found identifying box owner as A", or "no form found identifying box owner".
In other words, the FBI relied on an inconsistency in the warrant: it said they did not have permission to seize the contents of the boxes, but it also said they could follow "standard inventory policy", which in turn contained provisions that could be interpreted inconsistently to both require an inventory of the contents and to only authorize a search to the extent needed to identify the owner, if possible. This certainly seems to me to violate the Fourth Amendment.
In the case of boxes which were accompanied by a form identifying the owner, what obviously should have happened was that the FBI should have done nothing more with those boxes until the owner could be investigated to see if there was probable cause to think they had put evidence of a crime in the box. If there was, an additional warrant could be obtained to search that box. If not, the box could just be returned, unopened, to the owner. (In fact, the boxes of many plaintiffs were returned during the course of this lawsuit--but not unopened.)
In the case of boxes which were not accompanied by a form identifying the owner, the question would be whether that in itself was probable cause to think the box might contain evidence of a crime. In any case, that would be a question to be properly addressed by applying for an additional warrant.
So I think there were several rights violations here: first, the judge who approved the warrant should have spotted the inconsistency in what the FBI was asking for and resolved it; second, the FBI should have adopted an inventory policy that was consistent; and third, the judge in this ruling should not have let the FBI get away with what they actually did.