Whether the refusal to return lawfully seized property implicates the Fourth Amendment

QUESTION PRESENTED Persons who are arrested surrender their property to the arresting authority “to insure against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property.” Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 372 (1987). Most police departments follow the common law rule, in effect when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, that a state official who lawfully seizes property becomes a “temporary bailee” who is required to safeguard the property. The City of Chicago ignores the common law rule and follows the “destroy or sell policy” upheld by the Seventh Circuit in Conyers v. Chicago, 10 F.4th 704 (7th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1669 (2022) and reaffirmed in this case. This policy results in the sale or destruction of arrestee property that is not claimed within 30 days of arrest, even for persons like petitioner who remain in custody for six months before being acquitted and released. The circuits are divided on whether the refusal to return lawfully seized property implicates the Fourth Amendment. The question presented is: May a municipality, consistent with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, sell or destroy property seized for safekeeping from an arrestee, merely because the arrestee is held in custody as a pre-trial detainee for more than 30 days? @