other times, Fox states that the inventory search was conducted without a warrant, suggesting that Fox is challenging that search. We find that Fox has explicitly waived any challenge to the August 1993 search and ignore any indirect argumentation to the contrary. In any event, the fact that the inventory search was conducted without a warrant does not undermine the reasonableness of the search under the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 371-72, 107 S.Ct. 738, 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987). 5 . The district court here and another district court in this circuit have held that the Fourth Amendment is violated when defendants improperly refuse to return property after a lawful initial seizure. See Swales v. Township of Ravenna, 989 F.Supp. 925, 940-41 (N.D.Ohio 1997) (<HOLDING>); but see Palermo v. City of Chicago, No. 91 C
holding seizure of evidence in plain view reasonable under fourth amendment holding that an initially reasonable seizure can become an unreasonable seizure that violates the fourth amendment when officers refuse to return seized property holding seizure unreasonable due to length of detention of property holding that impoundment of a vehicle can be a seizure under the fourth amendment holding that the fourth amendment right implicated in a malicious prosecution action is the right to be free of unreasonable seizure of the person