CA4: Criminal seizure of evidence here not a 4A or due process violation

Motorcycles under lien were seized as evidence in a biker shootout. The finance company sued under the Fourth Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Deprivation of property as criminal evidence is not a violation of due process or the Fourth Amendment. Am. Acceptance Corp. of SC v. Gietz, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 13629 (4th Cir. May 12, 2026):

Courts have routinely recognized that criminal matters pose unique considerations with respect to due process rights. In Fuentes v. Shevin, the Supreme Court acknowledged the “highly important governmental need” of property seizures for criminal investigations, especially in “situations demanding prompt action.” Id. at 93 n.30. Furthermore, both this Court and other circuits have relied on the Fourth Amendment for guidance as to the proper process that is due for seizure of property in the context of criminal cases. See Smith v. Travelpiece, 31 F.4th 878, 884 (4th Cir. 2022) (quoting Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 125 n.27 (1975)) (“[T]he Fourth Amendment was tailored explicitly for the criminal justice system, and its balance between individual and public interests always has been thought to define the ‘process that is due’ for seizures of person or property in criminal cases.”); see also Abbott v. Latshaw, 164 F.3d 141, 146 (3d Cir. 1998)) (“Prior notice is not, however, absolutely necessary so long as other procedures guarantee protection against erroneous or arbitrary seizures.” (citing Mitchell v. W.T. Grant Co., 416 U.S. 600, 605-06 (1974)).

In Rodgers v. Knight, the Eighth Circuit addressed an analogous challenge to law enforcement’s retention of seized property for a criminal investigation. 781 F.3d 932, 941 (8th Cir. 2015). Ultimately, the court concluded that “‘[w]hen seizing property for criminal investigatory purposes, compliance with the Fourth Amendment satisfies pre-deprivation procedural due process’ … [and w]here retention of evidence is justified by pending charges or an arrest warrant, no further process is required.” Id. (quoting Walters v. Wolf, 660 F.3d 307, 314 (8th Cir. 2011); see also Serio v. Balt. Cnty., 115 F. Supp. 2d 509, 517 (D. Md. 2000) (finding no procedural due process violation where law enforcement officers lawfully seized and retained the plaintiff’s weapons during a criminal investigation).

In accordance with our well-established precedent that the Fourth Amendment has been “thought to define the ‘process that is due’ for seizures of person or property in criminal cases,” and the reasoning in Rodgers, we find that the Fourth Amendment applies in this case as well. Travelpiece, 31 F.4th at 884. This Court finds no reason to change the analysis simply because the property interest belongs to a third party.