An incomplete inventory, but not an unconstitutional search: Henderson v. New Holland
I think the inventory-search discussion in Henderson is worth a close read. The officers did not finish the paperwork their policy required. That did not make the search unconstitutional, but I wouldn’t read the decision as a reason to leave the paperwork unfinished.
The Sixth Circuit considered whether the officers’ departures from the inventory policy made the search unconstitutional in Henderson v. Village of New Holland, No. 26-3051, slip op. (6th Cir. Aug. 7, 2026), decided August 7. Although the case involved several challenges to the officers’ conduct, its discussion of inventory searches is particularly useful for police departments and the public officials who advise them.
What happened
New Holland officers stopped Cody Henderson for driving with expired registration tags after previously citing him and warning him about the same problem. They impounded his car and conducted an inventory search, during which they forced open a locked tote containing hemp, CBD, and similar substances. Henderson was also arrested for obstructing official business during the encounter. The charges were later dismissed, and he sued the officers and the village.
The district court granted summary judgment on all claims against the village but allowed certain Fourth Amendment and state-law malicious prosecution claims against Police Chief William Lawless to proceed. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed, concluding that no Fourth Amendment violation had occurred.
How the policy violations affected the search
An inventory search allows officers to account for the contents of a vehicle lawfully taken into police custody without obtaining a search warrant. The exception does not permit officers to impound a vehicle simply because they suspect it contains evidence and then call the resulting search an inventory. Standardized criteria governing impoundment and the scope of the search help distinguish a legitimate inventory from an investigative search conducted under another name. Id., slip op. at 8–9.
New Holland had an ordinance authorizing impoundment and a policy requiring a complete inventory of an impounded vehicle’s contents. The policy also required officers to list all property and make two copies of the inventory. In Henderson’s case, the officers made only one copy, which apparently listed only the items found inside the tote.
Henderson argued that those departures made the search unconstitutional, but the Sixth Circuit rejected that conclusion. The officers had a legitimate basis to impound the car because he continued driving with expired registration despite the earlier citation and warnings, and the inventory policy supplied direction for the search. The deficiencies in the subsequent paperwork did not, by themselves, establish that the officers had used the inventory process to avoid the Fourth Amendment’s requirements. Id., slip op. at 9–10.
Reviewing the inventory policy
For police departments, this is a useful opportunity to review impoundment procedures along with inventory-search policies. A policy explaining how to search a vehicle does not resolve whether officers may take custody of it in the first place, so counsel should review the authority for impoundment as well as the instructions governing the search.
I would still want to understand why the inventory was incomplete. The court’s conclusion resolves the constitutional question in this case, but the department still has property to account for and a policy it expects officers to follow. If incomplete inventories are a recurring problem, I suggest looking at whether the instructions are clear and whether officers have what they need to complete them.
Congratulations to Zachary Weigel at Freeman Mathis & Gary, who argued the appeal on behalf of Chief Lawless and obtained this reversal.