rule that if an arrest violates the Fourth Amendment, the subsequent seizure of property based on the invalid arrest violates it as well. In Ross v. Duggan, this Court addressed a situation similar to the one in this case. 402 F.3d 575 (6th Cir.2004). There, several plaintiffs challenged the City of Detroit’s seizure of their vehicles during their arrests for prostitution-related offenses. Id. at 578. The City justified its seizure based on Michigan’s nuisance abatement statute, and we held that the statute permitted the seizure of vehicles used to transport someone to the scene of the crime. See id. at 580, 582-83. But Ross does not decide the case before us because Ross involved plaintiffs who had effectively conceded that probable cause existed for their offenses. See id. at 584-87 (<HOLDING>). Of course, Ross also held that there was
holding that the existence of probable cause furnished constitutional justification for the temporary preforefeiturehearing impoundments of the subject vehicles holding that the existence of probable cause in a  1983 case is a jury question holding that the existence of probable cause for an arrest is a complete defense to a first amendment retaliation claim under the doctrine of qualified immunity holding that the existence of probable cause is a complete defense to a  1983 claim alleging false arrest holding that the existence of probable cause vitiated the need for an inquiry into an underlying motive for the arrest