Larry Krueger v. City of Eastpointe, Mich., 20-1385

In June 2018 Douglas Slayton was stopped, arrested for DUI (BAC .258) while driving his grandfather Larry Krueger's 2001 Dodge Neon; officers towed the vehicle and conducted an inventory search that uncovered marijuana and cocaine.
Slayton signed a Notice of Seizure and Intent to Forfeit the Neon; police sent a notice to the address on the vehicle title (an outdated address) and the city did not pursue formal forfeiture proceedings.
Krueger learned the car was impounded, contacted police, retained counsel, and unsuccessfully sought immediate return; his counsel did not refile a motion in Michigan circuit court, which has exclusive forfeiture jurisdiction.
The Neon remained in storage awaiting release upon payment of accumulated towing and storage fees (claimed to be at least $6,676).
Krueger sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment unlawful search/seizure; Fifth/Fourteenth procedural and substantive due process; Eighth Amendment excessive fines) and asserted state-law conversion; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed, concluding no federal constitutional or state-law violations on the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Fourth Amendment – impound and inventory search	Police unlawfully seized/searched the Neon without contacting owner or verifying title	Impound lawful because driver arrested at 3–4 a.m. with no licensed driver present; inventory search permitted	Held: Impound and inventory search lawful; no Fourth Amendment violation
Procedural/Substantive Due Process	Lack of adequate notice and opportunity to be heard; invoked innocent-owner defense	Police provided notice to driver and mailed notice to title address; Krueger had actual notice and could pursue state circuit court remedies	Held: Substantive claim waived; procedural due process satisfied (reasonable and actual notice); state process available and not shown inadequate
Eighth Amendment – excessive fines	Requiring payment of towing/storage fees is punitive and excessive	Fees are remedial compensation for costs of storage, not punishment	Held: Fees remedial, not punitive; Excessive Fines Clause inapplicable
Conversion (Michigan law)	City/Officers converted Neon and used it as leverage to extract payment	Neon remained stored; defendants did not use car for personal benefit; fees compensate storage costs	Held: No conversion; plaintiff produced no evidence of defendants’ personal use

United States v. Kimes, 246 F.3d 800 (6th Cir. 2001) (police impound discretion and standard criteria)
Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987) (inventory searches permissible when pursuant to standard procedures)
South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) (authority to impound vehicles for public safety/convenience)
United States v. Harvey, 16 F.3d 109 (6th Cir. 1994) (impound justified when no licensed driver to take vehicle)
United States v. Smith, 510 F.3d 641 (6th Cir. 2007) (lawfulness of inventory searches)
Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006) (notice requirement for due process)
United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260 (2010) (actual notice satisfies due process)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (due-process balancing test)
Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993) (Excessive Fines Clause applies to punitive forfeitures)
Timbs v. Indiana, 139 S. Ct. 682 (2019) (Excessive Fines Clause incorporated against states)
United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998) (distinguishing remedial vs. punitive fines and proportionality)
Aroma Wines & Equip., Inc. v. Columbian Distrib. Servs., Inc., 871 N.W.2d 136 (Mich. 2015) (conversion requires defendant's personal use)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment genuine-issue standard)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burdens and standards)