asked for a copy of his license. We only consider Fox’s version of the driver’s license events and do not consider this version because we are reviewing a grant of summary judgment. 2 . Fox primarily asserts that the defendants violated his property right to his driver's license. Fox does not make any argument from a liberty interest in the right to drive. Fox does argue that the defendants’ refusal to return his license violated a liberty interest by making it more difficult for him to find work because he lacked his driver’s license to show as identification. We do not feel that analysis of this interest is materially different from an analysis of Fox's property right in his driver’s license. 3 . Of course, the Fourth Amendment does not apply directly to the actions th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Neither unpublished opinion from our circuit
holding that privileges licenses certificates and franchises qualify as property interests for purposes of procedural due process but that due process only becomes relevant where such property is deprived holding that a state defendant has a sixth amendment right guaranteed by the fourteenth amendments due process clause to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor holding that district court erred in dismissing as frivolous a complaint alleging violations of due process including an illegal seizure and retention of his property under the fourth and fourteenth amendments and a procedural due process violation and that defendant officers refused to return his property without reason or explanation holding that for federal court to grant full faith and credit to state court judgment state proceedings must satisfy the minimum procedural requirements of the fourteenth amendments due process clause holding municipalities  are not persons within the meaning of the due process clause of the fifth or fourteenth amendments