police take custody of a defendant’s belongings, such as a bag or suitcase, they may open the item and itemize its contents pursuant to standard inventory procedures. Id. Inventory searches of property lawfully in police custody are permissible “as long as that search is consistent with the police caretaking function.” United States v. O’Bryant, 775 F.2d 1528, 1534 (11th Cir.1985); see United States v. Khoury, 901 F.2d 948, 958 (11th Cir.1990). In addition, the former Fifth Circuit “has consistently recognized that the fourth amendment is not violated when the police take custody of the property of persons they arrest to store that property for safekeeping.” United States v. Gravitt, 484 F.2d 375, 378 (5th Cir.1973) ; see United States v. Lipscomb, 435 F.2d 795, 799-801 (5th Cir.1970) (<HOLDING>). Here, Cooper and Blanchard have abandoned any
holding that a visitor to a hotel room for purposes of distributing drugs failed to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the room holding that a hotel security guard was not liable under  1983 merely because he called police and brought the police to the plaintiffs hotel room holding that a 7 excise tax based on the charge to the public for a hotel room applied to the price expedia demands from the consumer for the right to occupy the hotel room and not the price expedia agrees to pay the hotel for the room holding that it was reasonable for police officers to take all the arrested couples personal belongings from a hotel room and bring the belongings to police headquarters holding that a hotel occupant who was asked to leave by police officers acting on behalf of hotel management who complained of defendants disorderly behavior was justifiably ejected under state law and no longer had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the hotel room