Minor property damage arising from a potential seizure that did not happen did not rise to the level of a Fourth Amendment violation for unreasonable interference with property. Robertson v. City of Grand Rapids, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89272 (W.D. Mich. November 4, 2008):<\/p>\n
Assuming that an unauthorized towing of plaintiff’s vehicles would have constituted a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes, it is clear that no such seizure occurred in this case. By plaintiff’s own telling of the events, officers were only preparing to tow the vehicle when plaintiff intervened. Defendants never accomplished a significant interference with plaintiff’s possessory interests. The only consequence of the event was some minor property damage. In these circumstances, no viable Fourth Amendment claim exists.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Supplemental claims for a Fourth Amendment violation were properly cognizable in state court under Younger v. Harris<\/a> rather than federal court. The \u00a7 1983 action was dismissed for not stating a claim. Galvani v. Pennsylvania, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89150 (M.D. Pa. November 4, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading