Warrantless audit search of a business; Consent; Schneckloth v Bustamonte; Authority; Scope; Pretext; Equal protection; TriHealth, Inc v Board of Comm’rs, Hamilton Cnty; Class-of-one test; Green Genie, Inc v City of Detroit; Rational basis; Due process property interest in public contract; Enertech Elec, Inc v Mahoning Cnty Comm’rs; Municipal liability; 42 USC § 1983 & Monell v Department of Soc Servs; Request for proposals (RFP)

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court held that: (1) the warrantless “audit” searches of plaintiffs’ (Rockwood) premises were consensual, (2) their class-of-one equal-protection theory failed under rational-basis review, (3) the RFP created no property interest to support a due-process claim, and (4) the derivative Monell claim therefore failed. Rockwood had long worked with the sheriff’s office, handling vehicle maintenance and towing. After defendant-Goodnough (the new sheriff) took office, he and a deputy conducted an on-site audit at Rockwood and at the owner’s pole barn, the county bid out fleet maintenance to another shop, and the sheriff revised the towing rotation, reducing Rockwood’s share. Plaintiffs sued on a variety of theories. The district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the court first rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the warrantless audits violated the Fourth Amendment. “Defendants have provided evidence sufficient for a jury to conclude that [the owner’s son] had actual and apparent authority to consent to the search of Rockwood. Plaintiffs have not raised any genuine factual dispute.” The court also rejected plaintiffs’ arguments as to the scope of the search and pretext. Their class-of-one claim attacking the fleet-maintenance award and tow-list changes also failed. The court found rational bases supported both decisions. Defendants “had a rational basis for selecting [another company’s] clarified bid over” Rockwood’s original one. And plaintiffs “are ‘unable to disprove all conceivable justifications’ for that selection.” Further, distance “to travel and timeliness are rational reasons for selecting one tow company over another.” Finally, the court rejected plaintiffs’ due process contention that the RFP created a protected property interest, emphasizing that defendant-county “‘reserve[d] the right to accept or to reject any and all proposals, to waive any irregularities and to make an award that is determined by the’” county to be in its best interests. As such, plaintiffs did not demonstrate “that they had a property interest in the contract . . . .” Because no issue of fact as to an underlying constitutional violation remained, summary judgment was also appropriate for the county on the Monell claim. Affirmed.