Blog Post | 114 KY. L. J. ONLINE | March 6, 2026
Towing the Line: Navigating the Jurisdictional Divide over the Duration of Fourth Amendment Seizures
By: Ursula Fuller-Wisner, Staff Editor, Vol. 114
Under the Fourth Amendment, U.S. citizens have a fundamental right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”[1] Although this right is easily taken for granted, the government may seize personal property without a warrant in quite a few circumstances.[2] Vehicle towing represents one of these notable exceptions that leaves the public exposed to predatory practices.[3] Data collected from the National Insurance Crime Bureau found “an 89% increase nationwide in predatory towing claims” between 2022 and 2024.[4] Though nationwide data is scarce, one article projected the towing industry’s annual revenue to reach $11.8 billion by the end of 2026.[5] Recent data from 2026 noted that the U.S. automobile towing industry experienced “significant expansion, recording a solid 5.8% annual growth over the past three years.”[6]
Despite this growth, 2022 reports indicate that only one-third of states prohibit towing kickbacks or incentives for law enforcement and private property owners.[7] Illustrating the need for protections against kickbacks, two Detroit-area officers were charged in 2021 with bribery related to illegal towing company schemes.[8] Given the towing industry’s rapid expansion,[9] its role in the seizure of personal property, and an increase in predatory towing claims, U.S. citizens are placed in an increasingly vulnerable position.[10]
While state-level towing protections vary significantly across the country,[11] citizens can also capitalize on the Fourth Amendment's protections to combat predatory towing practices. The problem, however, is that the scope of this constitutional protection is indeterminate in the face of a growing circuit split.[12] The Third Circuit recently deepened the split, joining the Ninth and D.C. Circuits in holding that Fourth Amendment reasonableness governs both the initial tow and the subsequent “prolonged detention” of a vehicle.[13] Conversely, the First, Second, Sixth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits have held that the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement applies only to the initial tow, not the subsequent retention.[14]
When it comes to Constitutional interpretation, the Supreme Court often relies on history “and look[s] to the Amendment’s original meaning from the eighteenth century.”[15] Rooted in English common law protections for private property, the Fourth Amendment was primarily designed to curb the use of "writs of assistance," which had historically granted British officials unlimited authority to search and seize without cause.[16] Although the prohibition of general warrants was "well settled" under English common law by 1768,[17] the Crown continued to seize private property without authority—a practice that grew increasingly controversial as officials exploited English customs laws to conduct general searches in Colonial America.[18] This historical disdain for intrusive searches was not only shared by the American Colonists but also compelled the Founders to formalize protections within the Fourth Amendment to guard against future governmental overreach.[19]
After analyzing the Fourth Amendment’s historical roots, the D.C. Circuit concluded that “the word ‘seizure’ encompassed both the act of taking possession and continuing possession over time.”[20] The Third Circuit relied on both the D.C. Circuit’s historical analysis as well as Supreme Court precedent from United States v. Jacobsen on the way to reaching the same conclusion.[21] In Jacobsen, the Court held that even if an initial seizure is reasonable, the events following the seizure may still become unreasonable.[22]
Despite this history and precedent, the current majority on the circuit split has held that the reasonableness requirement only applies to the initial seizure.[23] But, the Third Circuit’s holding may mark a shift in this debate. While the holdings of the First, Second, Sixth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits all took place between 1999 and 2017,[24] the Third, Ninth, and D.C. Circuit’s holdings all took place between 2017 and 2025.[25] Whether this shift was spurred by the industry's economic growth or the rise of predatory claims, the current constitutional debate has significant ramifications beyond vehicle towing. For example, the outcome could clarify the Fourth Amendment’s limits on the government's power to retain journalists' property during a time of civil unrest.[26] Although the Supreme Court has not yet intervened,[27] the persistent circuit split marks a critical evolution in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence that will impact the future of property rights in America.
[1] U.S. Const. amend. IV.
[2] Fourth Amendment Warrant Exceptions to Search or Seize, Moore Christoff & Siddiqui (Feb. 28, 2024), https://moorechristoff.com/insight/warrant-exceptions/.
[3] Predatory Towing, Nat’l Ins. Crime Bureau, https://www.nicb.org/prevent-fraud-theft/predatory-towing (last visited Feb. 22, 2025).
[4] Id.
[5] Gavin Ross, Automobile Towing in the US, IBISWorld (Feb. 2026), https://www.ibisworld.com/united-states/industry/automobile-towing/1206/.
[6] Automobile Towing Industry Report 2025: $12.8B Market Size & 8.9% Growth, Kentley Insights (Jan. 2026), https://www.kentleyinsights.com/automobile-towing-industry-market-research-report/.
[7] Jacob van Cleef & Teresa Murray, Towing Kickbacks: Only One-Third of States Ban Incentives to Property Owners, Law Enforcement, Pub. Int. Rsch. Grp. (Apr. 23, 2022), https://pirg.org/edfund/resources/towing-kickbacks-only-one-third-states-ban-incentives-property-owners-law-enforcement/.
[8] Jessica Dupnack & Jack Nissen, 2 Detroit Police Officers Charged with Bribery as Federal Probe into Improper Towing Practices Widens, FOX2 Detroit (Oct. 27, 2021), https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/2-detroit-police-officers-charged-bribery-as-federal-probe-into-improper-towing-practices-widens (demonstrating that law enforcement officers have been implicated in towing kickback schemes).
[9] Kentley Insights, supra note 6.
[10] See Nat’l Ins. Crime Bureau, supra note 3.
[11] Grace Getman, Taking an Industry in Tow: The Role of the New York Attorney General in Enforcing State Towing Laws, N.Y.U. J. Legis. & Pub. Pol’y Quorum (Oct. 11, 2024), https://nyujlpp.org/quorum/getman-taking-an-industry-in-tow/.
[12] Michael John Garcia & Tamsin G. Harrington, Cong. Rsch. Serv., LSB11377, Congressional Court Watcher: Circuit Splits from September 2025 (2025).
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] Ian Seabrooks, Time as a Constitutional Constraint: Resolving the Circuit Split on Prolonged Fourth Amendment Seizures, 100 Wash. L. Rev. Online 1, 17 (2026).
[16] Id. at 9.
[17] Laura K. Donohue, The Original Fourth Amendment, 83 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1181, 1220 (2016).
[18] Id. at 1240.
[19] Seabrooks, supra note 15, at 9.
[20] Asinor v. District of Columbia, 111 F.4th 1249, 1253 (D.C. Cir. 2024)
[21] Id.
[22] Id. (citing United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 124 (1984)).
[23] Garcia & Harrington, supra note 12.
[24] See Denault v. Ahern, 857 F.3d 76 (1st Cir. 2017); Case v. Eslinger, 555 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2009); Shaul v. Cherry Valley-Springfield Cent. Sch., 363 F.3d 177 (2d Cir. 2004); Lee v. City of Chicago, 330 F.3d 456 (7th Cir. 2003); Fox v. Van Oosterum, 176 F.3d 342 (6th Cir. 1999).
[25] See Honda Lease Tr. v. Malanga’s Auto., 152 F.4th 477 (3d Cir. 2025); Asinor v. District of Columbia, 111 F.4th 1249 (D.C. Cir. 2024); Brewster v. Beck, 859 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2017).
[26] Seabrooks, supra note 15, at 4.
[27] Id. at 6.