E.D.N.Y.: Where property was lawfully seized under 4A, delayed return isn’t a 4A violation

Plaintiff finances cars. When Suffolk County seized the cars from the buyers, they were allegedly really slow in returning them to Santander. Plaintiff admits the initial seizure was lawful, so the retention doesn’t ipso facto violate the Fourth Amendment. Santander Consumer USA, Inc. v. Cty. of Suffolk, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34236 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2026):

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has explicitly held that if “an initial seizure of property was reasonable, defendants’ failure to return the items does not, by itself, state a separate Fourth Amendment claim of unreasonable seizure.” Shaul v. Cherry Valley-Springfield Cent. Sch. Dist., 363 F.3d 177, 187 (2d Cir. 2004). Rather, “a seizure claim based on … unlawful retention [is] too novel a theory to warrant Fourth Amendment protection.” Id. (citing United States v. Jakobetz, 955 F.2d 786, 802 (2d Cir. 1992)). In a summary order, the Second Circuit further stated that the Fourth Amendment is not a viable basis for challenging the prolonged detention of property that was initially seized under lawful circumstances, and “to the extent the Constitution affords any right with respect to a government agency’s retention of lawfully seized property, it would appear to be procedural due process.” Bennett v. Dutchess County, 832 F. App’x 58, 60 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order) (quoting Shaul, 363 F.3d at 187).