Please show me where protecting a supermarket's video is a constitutionally protected right of the people.  Also, people in a supermarket are in a public access area where there is no expectation of privacy.  Thirdly, releasing the video does not grant LE access to the private, secured spaces owned by anyone in the video.  Your analogy is 100%+ wrong.

Please show me where a safe owner has a constitutionally protected right against the safe company from proving a back door code to the safe.  The 4th amendment applies to the government, not a private individual or entity. A business can comply with a law enforcement request for information if it wants to. Take a hotel manifest for example, not public information but if a cop says we are looking for John, is he staying in your hotel they can choose to say yes and give the room number.

That's a ridiculous argument when the company has a stated policy that says what I said.  Liberty explained they only provide access  codes where a warrant is in place.
 That's not a hypothetical.  That's an admission as to how they have been operating.

Would you be fine if a safe company gave your safe code to the authorities if they had a warrant?

No.  Now you're just mincing words.  You reiterated exactly what I said, but chose to say it's policy, not "legal perspective."  That's BS.  When they were not compelled LEGALLY to disclose anything until and unless a subpoena forced them to, that's about as much of a legal issue as it can get.  It was their policy to cooperate with only a search warrant issued for their customer's property, but the fact that they had no legal requirement to do so is 100% within the scope of "legal perspective" regardless of policy.

Their decision to give a code to law enforcement is a policy decision, not a legal one because they had the power to comply or to ask for a subpoena or ask for a warrant. If the cops came with a warrant and they complied with the warrant then it would be a legal decision.

So, if you buy a safe to protect your property from ANY access without your permission, and the vendor bypasses your combination to let LE open it, you'd be okay with that?
 WTH did you buy a safe for then?  If a 3rd party can decide  to allow someone else access to your safe's contents, would you really not see that as a big deal?

Saying "they are going to get into it eventually" is a rationalization, not a justification.  Any motivated thief is going to eventually get into your locked safe to steal your guns, so why have a safe at all?  Just get a locking cabinet to keep the kids out, and you're golden.

I am pointing out that it is a moot point. If cops take my safe as evidence in some crime it make no difference whether they get in through brute force or through a back door code, they are going to get in and have a look regardless. The question that matters is whether they are justified to take my safe and look into it.  I won't be more or less guilty if the cops use a crowbar instead of a back door code.

Please show me where a safe owner has a constitutionally protected right against the safe company from proving a back door code to the safe.  The 4th amendment applies to the government, not a private individual or entity. A business can comply with a law enforcement request for information if it wants to. Take a hotel manifest for example, not public information but if a cop says we are looking for John, is he staying in your hotel they can choose to say yes and give the room number.

...

LOL!  When a private company or individual acts as an agent of any law enforcement agency, then the government is also an actor.

if Liberty had called up the FBI and volunteered the information, then you'd have a point.  But when they were asked for the code and willingly handed it over without a subpoena, they were acting in the same capacity as any other officer helping to execute a warrant on the subject's home.

Ever watch shows like Law & Order?  i've seen many movies, TV shows and episodes in which a cop talked a third party into doing what they could not do themselves -- like searching an apartment the third party is the maintenance guy or landlord for.  The evidence gets thrown out because the third party was only looking for the evidence at the request of the police.  That's all it takes to become an agent of the government.  And if the agent violates someone's constitutional rights, the government is responsible.

LOL!  When a private company or individual acts as an agent of any law enforcement agency, then the government is also an actor.

if Liberty had called up the FBI and volunteered the information, then you'd have a point.  But when they were asked for the code and willingly handed it over without a subpoena, they were acting in the same capacity as any other officer helping to execute a warrant on the subject's home.

Ever watch shows like Law & Order?  i've seen many movies, TV shows and episodes in which a cop talked a third party into doing what they could not do themselves -- like searching an apartment the third party is the maintenance guy or landlord for.  The evidence gets thrown out because the third party was only looking for the evidence at the request of the police.  That's all it takes to become an agent of the government.  And if the agent violates someone's constitutional rights, the government is responsible.

The truth lies in the weeds. If the FBI called up Liberty safe and said, please help us break into the safe, then yes, they would be considered acting as an agent of the government. If the FBI asked if there is a backdoor code to unlock a safe and Liberty Safe provided that information then it would be hard to make the case that Liberty Safe is acting as an agent of the government. Between that those two ends is lots of gray area.

Regardless, even if Liberty Safe physically participated in the opening of the safe, at the direction of the FBI, and would therefore be considered agents of the government, Liberty Safe would not be guilty of an improper search. The results of the search might get tossed out as fruits of the poisonous tree of course.

According to the video by Brandon Hererra there was a search warrant to look into the safe. Furthermore he stated that according to Liberty Safe's statement, they received proof that the FBI had a valid search warrant. So at this point, I don't see much of a legal issue. If the FBI did the traditional thing and hired a locksmith, they would not need an extra subpoena to order the locksmith to do his thing. Yes the locksmith would be acting as an agent of the government but the search is legal if there is a warrant. The difference here is that they asked the company about a back door means of opening the safe and the company provided them with it. Now if the FBI asked LS for the specific code to Flapp's safe and LS provided it, you could argue that it was your personal information and that you had an expectation of privacy to said information. However if LS just had a master key or master code that worked on all safes you would have a hard time claiming that code as your personal information and therefore subject to an additional search warrant.

If feds broke into the safe and had to return all items, then wouldn't they also have to pay for repair or replacement?  Now they can just give it back and always have that backdoor code until the locking mechanism is changed.

The big issue is that a company is complying with an agency who doesn't have the best track record.  And it's supposed to be a pro 2a company as they make gun safes. I say supposed because we found out who they are owned by.

The truth lies in the weeds. If the FBI called up Liberty safe and said, please help us break into the safe, then yes, they would be considered acting as an agent of the government. If the FBI asked if there is a backdoor code to unlock a safe and Liberty Safe provided that information then it would be hard to make the case that Liberty Safe is acting as an agent of the government. Between that those two ends is lots of gray area.

Regardless, even if Liberty Safe physically participated in the opening of the safe, at the direction of the FBI, and would therefore be considered agents of the government, Liberty Safe would not be guilty of an improper search. The results of the search might get tossed out as fruits of the poisonous tree of course.

According to the video by Brandon Hererra there was a search warrant to look into the safe. Furthermore he stated that according to Liberty Safe's statement, they received proof that the FBI had a valid search warrant. So at this point, I don't see much of a legal issue. If the FBI did the traditional thing and hired a locksmith, they would not need an extra subpoena to order the locksmith to do his thing. Yes the locksmith would be acting as an agent of the government but the search is legal if there is a warrant. The difference here is that they asked the company about a back door means of opening the safe and the company provided them with it. Now if the FBI asked LS for the specific code to Flapp's safe and LS provided it, you could argue that it was your personal information and that you had an expectation of privacy to said information. However if LS just had a master key or master code that worked on all safes you would have a hard time claiming that code as your personal information and therefore subject to an additional search warrant.

Once again, you trying to mince words is not an argument.

Do you really believe Liberty would say, "Why yes,  we keep master codes of safes.  Would you like one?"

Ridiculous.  Liberty was told by the FBI, "We have a search warrant and need to access one of your safes.  Can we get any combos you have in your database for serial number 12345?"

At that point, Liberty has the option to say no, but they chose to be agents of the government by assisting with executing a search warrant.

You're making up crap that doesn't fit the reported facts.

Once again, you trying to mince words is not an argument.

In your opinion.

Do you really believe Liberty would say, "Why yes,  we keep master codes of safes.  Would you like one?"
Ridiculous.  Liberty was told by the FBI, "We have a search warrant and need to access one of your safes.  Can we get any combos you have in your database for serial number 12345?"
At that point, Liberty has the option to say no, but they chose to be agents of the government by assisting with executing a search warrant.

Lets go with that assumption as being correct for the sake of discussion. So what is the problem if Liberty Safe acted as an agent of the government as long as the FBI had a search warrant to open the safe?

In your opinion.

Lets go with that assumption as being correct for the sake of discussion. So what is the problem if Liberty Safe acted as an agent of the government as long as the FBI had a search warrant to open the safe?

You're very dense.

The Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) found that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy against governmental intrusion via penumbras located in the founding text.

The FBI did not have a search warrant to open the safe, only to search his property.  They were permitted to search the safe if it was open since it was in his home, but he was under no obligation to incriminate himself or to assist the FBI in their search by divulging the combo - 5th Amendment protection. 

Liberty, by acting on behalf of the FBI, violated the man's 5th Amendment rights.  They used private information they stored on him and his safe to help the FBI search for evidence against him. 

How would you like it if the FBI told you to unlock your cell so they can see every call, text, picture and site in your browser history, and when you refused, your carrier volunteered to unlock it for them?  Without a subpoena compelling their cooperation, they are violating your right to privacy protecting your ability to avoid self-incrimination.

How would you like it if the FBI told you to unlock your cell so they can see every call, text, picture and site in your browser history, and when you refused, your carrier volunteered to unlock it for them?  Without a subpoena compelling their cooperation, they are violating your right to privacy protecting your ability to avoid self-incrimination.

Gotta fix this: Add in FBI had a warrant for you to show them your phone. But no warrant for the phone company to open it. 

This is also why you don't let LEO's into your home without a warrant. Anything they "see" can be used against you to get a warrant or additional charges. Don't even open the door.

You're very dense.

The Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) found that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy against governmental intrusion via penumbras located in the founding text.

The FBI did not have a search warrant to open the safe, only to search his property.  They were permitted to search the safe if it was open since it was in his home, but he was under no obligation to incriminate himself or to assist the FBI in their search by divulging the combo - 5th Amendment protection. 

Liberty, by acting on behalf of the FBI, violated the man's 5th Amendment rights.  They used private information they stored on him and his safe to help the FBI search for evidence against him. 

How would you like it if the FBI told you to unlock your cell so they can see every call, text, picture and site in your browser history, and when you refused, your carrier volunteered to unlock it for them?  Without a subpoena compelling their cooperation, they are violating your right to privacy protecting your ability to avoid self-incrimination.

I have to dense be with you.

I rewatched the video from Brandon Herera just to make sure I didn't make a mistake and mishear something. He clearly stated that the FBI had a warrant to search the safe at about the 45 second mark. Dense enough for you?

I have to dense be with you.

I rewatched the video from Brandon Herera just to make sure I didn't make a mistake and mishear something. He clearly stated that the FBI had a warrant to search the safe at about the 45 second mark. Dense enough for you?

So who's name was on the warrant?  The owner, Liberty, etc...?  Or do warrants work like a blanket and they can show it to anyone they need to, to accomplish what the warrant states?

By Liberty's statement, it doesn't sound like the warrant was addressed to Liberty.

I have to dense be with you.

I rewatched the video from Brandon Herera just to make sure I didn't make a mistake and mishear something. He clearly stated that the FBI had a warrant to search the safe at about the 45 second mark. Dense enough for you?

Go read the actual warrant instead of depending on second- and third-hand information you got from a YouTuber.

How about a statement from the Missouri Attorney general who just launched an investigation into Liberty Safe's decision to help the FBI?

The state Attorney General Andrew Bailey, a Republican, announced on Tuesday that his
office was launching an investigation into the company's release of its customer's safe code
to federal investigators, saying that the FBI "did not have a court order ordering Liberty Safe
to provide the safe's combination."

https://www.newsweek.com/liberty-safe-facing-investigation-customer-code-sharing-backlash-1826604

Liberty Safe's own statement, and the subsequent change to their policy, shows they didn't have a warrant FOR THE SAFE SPECIFICALLY, but rather to the property being searched -- as in buildings, grounds and vehicles on the property.  Liberty at least twice used the word "property" in their statement referring to this warrant and warrants in general.  The new policy says they must receive a subpoena for the SAFE itself before they give the codes up if they have them, now that they allow customers to have the information deleted.

Once again, while a safe is "property," it was not spelled out like you seem to think (you: "He clearly stated that the FBI had a warrant to search the safe").  Nope.  The FBI had a warrant to search the property, which in common English legal terms means the location -- i.e. grounds and buildings.

Here's a source that describes how the warrant specifies a location (property) and what they are allowed to seize:

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/search-warrant-basics-29742.html

Liberty Safe: You gave us your money, but we still own your stuff. 

Liberty Safe: You gave us your money, but we still own your stuff. 

They are being investigated for possibly failing to inform customers in no uncertain terms (not in vague EEF language) that they not only store your codes, but they will give them u;p if LE ever comes knocking with any old kind of warrant.

One would think in todays litigious society, a company as big and popular as Liberty would ask a lawyer if their policies are legally sound.

Guess they used that money for their holiday parties.

So who's name was on the warrant?  The owner, Liberty, etc...?  Or do warrants work like a blanket and they can show it to anyone they need to, to accomplish what the warrant states?

By Liberty's statement, it doesn't sound like the warrant was addressed to Liberty.

There are different issues at play here. Warrants do not need to name specific individuals but they do need to name specific property being searched. An address for example or a specific piece of property, ie bag, cell phone, etc. I think the only time you would need to name an individual is if it was either a body cavity search or it was property in possession of a certain individual.

The first is the issue of whether there was a valid warrant and what it covered. Warrants don't just say go search CMO's house, they go into a lot of detail telling law enforcement what they are to look for and where they can look. The warrant can even mention just part of the house. Warrants usually go into further detail by saying not just a room/house but specific things within the rooms, such as "all closed containers within". Sometimes it may specify only certain containers based on what is being looked for. For example if cops are searching for a stolen TV, the warrant might only allow them to look in closed containers big enough for a TV. Depending on the actual wording of the warrant the safe could be mentioned specifically or it could be mentioned indirectly by something like the specifying of closed containers within.

The second issue is requesting Liberty Safe's assistance. If they requested LS to actively assist in opening the safe then that makes LS an agent of the government. LS does not have to comply just because they ask or even if they have a warrant. If the warrant doesn't cover the safe then the opening of the safe by the FBI or by LS would be inadmissible. If there was a valid search warrant then the search is legal whether LS complied voluntarily or provided the information based on a subpoena. Consider if cops got a warrant to search an apartment. They could either kick down the door or they could ask the landlord to use his spare/master key to unlock the door. The landlord can say no or he can use his key to unlock the door, both would be fine as long as the warrant was valid. The cops would not need a separate court order in order to ask the landlord for his help.

Go read the actual warrant instead of depending on second- and third-hand information you got from a YouTuber.

How about a statement from the Missouri Attorney general who just launched an investigation into Liberty Safe's decision to help the FBI?
https://www.newsweek.com/liberty-safe-facing-investigation-customer-code-sharing-backlash-1826604

Liberty Safe's own statement, and the subsequent change to their policy, shows they didn't have a warrant FOR THE SAFE SPECIFICALLY, but rather to the property being searched -- as in buildings, grounds and vehicles on the property.  Liberty at least twice used the word "property" in their statement referring to this warrant and warrants in general.  The new policy says they must receive a subpoena for the SAFE itself before they give the codes up if they have them, now that they allow customers to have the information deleted.

Once again, while a safe is "property," it was not spelled out like you seem to think (you: "He clearly stated that the FBI had a warrant to search the safe").  Nope.  The FBI had a warrant to search the property, which in common English legal terms means the location -- i.e. grounds and buildings.

Here's a source that describes how the warrant specifies a location (property) and what they are allowed to seize:

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/search-warrant-basics-29742.html

The statement from LS you posted does not say whether the safe was included in the search warrant, it only says search of property. It would be a non sequitur to conclude based on that information that the safe was not covered by the warrant. The statement does not contain enough information to know whether the safe was included as the property to be searched or not.   If LS changed their policies that is all fine and good but that doesn't change anything about the initial case/

The discussion was started with a youtuber commentary. If he was wrong, get mad at him, not at me.
Did you even read the actual warrant?

so dumb. Most of you don't have a safe let alone guns that you use or NVGs...but you have a relative's cousin's friend's uncle's brother who knows someone who has a Liberty safe

The statement from LS you posted does not say whether the safe was included in the search warrant, it only says search of property. It would be a non sequitur to conclude based on that information that the safe was not covered by the warrant. The statement does not contain enough information to know whether the safe was included as the property to be searched or not.   If LS changed their policies that is all fine and good but that doesn't change anything about the initial case/

The discussion was started with a youtuber commentary. If he was wrong, get mad at him, not at me.
Did you even read the actual warrant?

Once again, they programmed you. LS is well aware of the backlash and didn't post "Liberty Safe was provided a warrant making us provide..." or "We were address specifically in the warrant to provide..." or "Liberty Safe was given a warrant to provide the access code...".

Because they were never named in any warrant is why they never stated anything like the above.  But I understand why you give them the benefit of the doubt.

so dumb. Most of you don't have a safe let alone guns that you use or NVGs...but you have a relative's cousin's friend's uncle's brother who knows someone who has a Liberty safe

Correct, I own no safe or guns, or ammo, or reloading supplies, or NVGs, or comms, or preps, or bodyarmor.

what a coincidence!
me too!!!

Correct, I own no safe or guns, or ammo, or reloading supplies, or NVGs, or comms, or preps, or bodyarmor.

what a coincidence!
me too!!!

Please clarify your "me too".  Do you own a pink hat?