Liberty Safes Provides Access Codes to FBI

[Steve300xcw]

. I’d send them a thank you letter when I got out that I came home to a working safe. And I do own a liberty.

Very interesting way of looking at things

 

[Mike 338]

Cross Liberty Safe off my list for anything they sell.

 

[Arthas]

And just so it’s in the open, an iPhone takes less than 30 mins to crack anymore so you aren’t safe there either.
If a subpoena was requested that takes about 4 minutes to complete and some states only require a notary signature on those. Some people also keep things not protected under 2A in safes. Any safe company out there would have yielded its contents in a matter of minutes; lock smith, grinder or gaining the combo. The vast majority of people also provide the combo when asked to avoid damage. I think some are getting upset for a safe owner who may not even feel sold out by liberty. I’d send them a thank you letter when I got out that I came home to a working safe. And I do own a liberty.

If the owner was in contact with Liberty and okd it, that is a completely different story.

Some people are OK with being searched without a warrant. Just because they are OK with it makes no difference to me.

I simply can not believe some of the arguments people are making. I Dont care if a subpeona takes 3 seconds to get. It a step in the process that can be reviewed during this persons court proceedings.

 

[wyogoat]

Well regardless of how they got in or the circumstances around it I’m sure their language in the warrant was broad enough that it wasn’t a warrantless search to enter that safe. This isn’t an issue where things will be suppressed despite what was found inside or how they got in.

 

[Arthas]

Well regardless of how they got in or the circumstances around it I’m sure their language in the warrant was broad enough that it wasn’t a warrantless search to enter that safe. This isn’t an issue where things will be suppressed despite what was found inside or how they got in.

Yea. The fbi would never suppress information about something like Jan 6. Never.

 

[wyogoat]

Not the point I was making or the way it was meant. The courts do the suppressing. Not the agency signing the warrant.

 

[SWOHTR]

I cannot get over the fearmongering in some of these posts.

 

[Huntindog45]

if they have a warrant to get in the safe then they are getting in the safe one way or another. frankly i would rather them open in via code than get in by damaging the safe

 

[D S 319]

Wouldn’t they need another warrant to get into the safe that’s on the property? Anything they find in the safe would not hold up in the court of law without the proper documentation? 1/6..political prosecution.. idk…

 

[rclouse79]

It seems to me they should have first asked the owner to open the safe. If they refused they should have charged the owner to have a locksmith drill into the safe, rendering it useless.

 

[Steve300xcw]

if they have a warrant to get in the safe then they are getting in the safe one way or another. frankly i would rather them open in via code than get in by damaging the safe

**** em. Would be happy to buy a new safe, if I knew I somehow inconvenienced them for an extra 20 mins

 

[roadrunner]

In other news it was reported it wasn't specifically on the warrant and the code was obtained after a phone call to Liberty.

Then that would be an illegal request and an illegal search...

 

[wyogoat]

The safe isn’t its own entity. It’s encompassed by the warrant so no extra warrant needed simply because it is secure. The same is true for a safe found during a vehicle search which is one of the few times a search may be conducted without a warrant when PC exists. Some of this stuff is really easy to research and understand guys.

 

[Steve300xcw]

So what agency do you work for?

 

[eamyrick]

It’s thread worthy because liberty has no obligation to provide a master code or key. Apple did the same thing with a shooting years ago but didn’t give access to a phone owned by the suspect. For gun owners it is worth knowing which companies respect your rights and doesn’t fold to alphabet groups for their given agenda.

Every company you know and use on a daily basis from your messaging application, power company, employer, church, where you buy your clothes, dating app, taxi service etc will provide your private information with legal search warrant signed by a judge. Some will provide basic information without even asking a judge. Your example that Apple provided information years ago is true, they also probably do so 100s of times per day, as does Google etc.

These laws do change because people voice concern and have the law changed. Since I’ve been in LE I’ve seen drastic changes in privacy. When I started in was legal and standard procedure to search the contents of a person’s phone during a traffic stop arrest. The law was changed and that is no longer permissible. I am very keen on my personal privacy and I think it’s important to get up to speed what the laws in your state and on a federal level.

 

[GSPHUNTER]

Let's face it guy, privacy is a thing if the past. Ain't technology grand.

 

[Steve300xcw]

. Since I’ve been in LE I’ve seen drastic changes in privacy. When I started in was legal and standard procedure to search the contents of a person’s phone during a traffic stop arrest.

And what were yall hoping to find on a phone?

 

[eamyrick]

And what were yall hoping to find on a phone?

For example, suspect caught leaving a vehicle burglary. Suspect arrested based on eye witness account and stolen object in plain view. Phone would have been searched (at the time, this is no longer permissible without exigency or a warrant) to find out if there were other victims property than had been traded or pawned, co-conspirators communicating. As technology got more advanced the massive amount of information stored on phones was respected by the courts allowing for a warrant.

 

[MattB]

There is a legal process to get hat information if th fbi needed it. The correct response from Liberty was "get a subpeona". Perhaps that is what happened and that will come to light. But the information we have now is that the fbi call and asked for it. By simply handing it over, Liberty has denied their customer a step in the legal process.

Unfortunately, we have now seen many instances where federal agencies have acted inappropriately towards political opponents. It was just recently that it came to light that the FBI was asking media companies to illegally censor Americans speech rights. So it is not a stretch to imagine that a violation of someone else rights may be occurring.

Liberty has bypassed one of the safe guards protecting citizens by justing handing his information over. I'm glad people know that is how they handle these matters.

Liberty was provided with a valid search warrant which is the requirement under company policy to provide that sort of information to law enforcement. The company stated it has refused numerous LE requests in the past when they were not provided a valid search warrant (which likewise aligns with company policy).

Are you suggesting that Liberty should have told the Feds to piss up a rope when presented with a search warrant and to go get a subpoena if they wanted the combination?

MSN

 

[Steve300xcw]

That woulda been ideal. Gotta love it when the feds get pissy about having to go through the proper channels