The circuits are divided on whether the Fourth Amendment protects property rights when a person's "papers and effects" remain in government custody after the property has been lawfully seized. Four circuits read United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984), as applying the Fourth Amendment to property after the property has been lawfully seized; five circuits do not, instead holding that a lawful seizure extinguishes all Fourth Amendment protection for the property.

This entrenched circuit split presents an important and recurring question that arises when, as in this case, property is inventoried following an arrest. The question also arises after the lawful seizure of vehicles, digital devices, business records, and other property pursuant to warrants or statutory authority.

The questions presented are:

1. Whether the Fourth Amendment protects an individual's property rights after the government has lawfully seized property.

2. In the alternative, whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment constrains the government's right to destroy property in its possession after a lawful seizure.

Whether the Fourth Amendment protects an individual's property rights after the government has lawfully seized property, and whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment constrains the government's right to destroy property in its possession after a lawful seizure