Jevarreo Kelley-Lomax v. City of Chicago, 49 F.4th 1124

Background

Chicago police seize certain property from arrestees (e.g., cell phones); detainees may reclaim items in person or by proxy within 30 days. After 30 days the City sells or discards unclaimed property.
Jevarreo Kelley-Lomax remained in custody for more than 30 days, failed to designate anyone to retrieve his property, and the City disposed of his cell phone and wallet (including a debit card and library card).
District court dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim, treating the case as controlled by Conyers v. Chicago.
Conyers held that the Fourth Amendment governs the reasonableness of the initial seizure but not post-seizure disposition (which is governed by the Due Process Clause), and rejected procedural due-process challenges to Chicago’s 30-day rule.
Kelley-Lomax pressed a substantive due-process claim, arguing the City must act as unpaid custodian of his goods indefinitely; the Seventh Circuit rejected that claim for lack of a historically rooted fundamental right and affirmed the dismissal.
The court noted unresolved questions: whether 30 days is adequate in all cases and whether the City must sell valuable seized items for the detainee’s account rather than discard them.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the Fourth Amendment govern post-seizure disposition of arrestees' property?	Fourth Amendment should control disposition (Kelley-Lomax sought reconsideration of Conyers).	Conyers controls: Fourth Amendment satisfied by reasonable seizure; disposition governed by Due Process.	Court declined to overrule Conyers: Fourth Amendment does not regulate disposition; Due Process does.
Does Chicago’s 30-day reclamation rule violate procedural due process?	(Implicit) 30 days insufficient to protect property interests.	City: provides notice and a reasonable opportunity (in person or by proxy) to reclaim property.	Court upheld Conyers’ reasoning that notice/opportunity exist; left timing (30 days vs longer) an open question.
Does substantive due process create a fundamental right to have government hold property indefinitely?	Property is a fundamental right; therefore the government must serve as unpaid custodian until owner reclaims.	No historically rooted tradition requiring government to act as indefinite unpaid bailee; property can be abandoned after statutory period.	Rejected: substantive due process requires historical tradition of the right, which plaintiff did not show; claim fails.
Must the City sell valuable seized items for owners’ accounts instead of discarding them?	(Not fully developed by Kelley-Lomax) Owners entitled to proceeds when value exceeds custody/sale costs.	City asserts storage and administrative burdens; may discard low-value items.	Not resolved. Court noted prior authority requiring return/proceeds for monetary property and suggested sale-for-account may be required for valuable items, but left the question open.

Key Cases Cited

Conyers v. Chicago, 10 F.4th 704 (7th Cir. 2021) (addressed constitutionality of Chicago's 30-day property rule and held disposition governed by Due Process)
Lee v. Chicago, 330 F.3d 456 (7th Cir. 2003) (seizure of an arrestee’s property is reasonable at the time of arrest)
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (U.S. 1997) (substantive due process requires rights to be deeply rooted in history and tradition)
Timbs v. Indiana, 139 S. Ct. 682 (U.S. 2019) (discussing incorporation and fundamental rights under Due Process)
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 142 S. Ct. 2228 (U.S. 2022) (substantive due process framework and historical analysis)
Cerajeski v. Zoeller, 735 F.3d 577 (7th Cir. 2013) (government must return monetary unclaimed property with interest when owner steps forward)
Goldberg v. Frerichs, 912 F.3d 1009 (7th Cir. 2019) (similar rule for monetary assets held by government)
Webb’s Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U.S. 155 (U.S. 1980) (governmental handling of unclaimed funds and owners’ interests)
Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington, 538 U.S. 216 (U.S. 2003) (treatment of charitable-interest and unclaimed funds)
United States v. Miller, 588 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2009) (seized firearms not forfeited may be sold for owner’s account if net value exceeds costs)