The Fourth Amendment governs searches [after Rochin and its “shocking the conscience” standard] not the due process clause. Smith v. Travelpiece, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 10743 n.6 (4th Cir. Apr. 20, 2022):
There are some Supreme Court cases that hold that due process provides additional requirements in limited circumstances. See United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43, 49-52 (1993) (discussing an area “beyond the traditional meaning of search or seizure” where the Due Process Clause adds requirements). For example, when “the Government seize[s] property not to preserve evidence of wrongdoing, but to assert ownership and control over the property” it “must comply with the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.” Id. at 52. But those examples lie only at the edges of the Fourth Amendment’s domain, and an unreasonable search to secure evidence, like this one, is at the very heart of it. In other circumstances, procedural due process imposes additional requirements, Perkins, 525 U.S. at 240 (holding that due process requires providing reasonable notice after seizure of property pursuant to a warrant), but only after the requirements and protections of the Fourth Amendment have fallen away, Thompson v. Whitman, 85 U.S. 457, 471 (1873) (“A seizure is a single act, and not a continuous fact.”). But Plaintiffs do not argue that any of those procedural rights are implicated by Trooper Travelpiece’s illicit search.