May a municipality, consistent with the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and pursuant to an explicit policy, destroy or sell property seized during the inventory search of an arrestee because the arrestee remains in custody awaiting trial for more than 30 days and is unable to retrieve the property?

QUESTION PRESENTED Persons who are arrested submit to an inventory search of their personal property. This serves “to protect an owner’s property while it is in the custody of the police, to insure against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property, and to guard the police from danger.” Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 372 (1987). Pursuant to an explicit policy, the City of Chicago will sell or destroy all arrestee property that is not claimed within 30 days of arrest, even for arrestees like petitioners who cannot reclaim their property because they have remained in custody awaiting trial. Other municipalities will store inventoried property until the criminal case is resolved. The Seventh Circuit described the City’s practice as a “destroy-or-sell policy” and held that it does not violate the Fourth or Fifth Amendments. The Court of Appeals acknowledged a circuit split on whether the protections of the Fourth Amendment apply to property after it has been lawfully seized or whether the Fourth Amendment applies only to the initial seizure. The question presented is: May a municipality, consistent with the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and pursuant to an explicit policy, destroy or sell property seized during the inventory search of an arrestee because the arrestee remains in custody awaiting trial for more than 30 days and is unable to retrieve the property? @