I agree that it shouldn't happen, and it feels like it should be unconstitutional. I'm wondering if it actually is unconstitutional, though. If they got a warrant to seize the vehicle, for example, it seems like it's probably constitutional. I think?

Depends on how truthful they were when filling out the warrant application. Cops often lie and exaggerate on warrant applications and hope for a sympathetic judge to not ask too many questions.

In that example it's unclear why a warrant would even be needed, it was parked in a hotel parking lot and it appears that they made no effect to contact the owner before requesting the warrant. It'd be really interesting to see what their justification was for asking to seize someone's car instead of just walking inside and asking the desk clerk to call them so they could ask for the footage.

There's probably a takings clause argument that the police should be required to reimburse the owner for reasonable expenses from the temporary loss of use of their vehicle.

Edit: cursory Googling turned up an old law journal article about this exact subject that lays out the arguments for and against: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1... (PDF) I don't know how the law has evolved since it was written.

Unconstitutional warrants are issued all the time. The only way to contest them is to fight the very legal system that granted them in the first place. Unless you're 1) rich or 2) find a very sympathetic lawyer good luck.