Krimstock v. Kelly

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that “[t]he Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment protects claimants against unreasonable seizures of their property in the civil forfeiture context”
• explaining that “[t]he Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment protects claimants against unreasonable seizures of their property in the civil forfeiture context”
• observing that New York City’s practice of seeking forfeiture only when a vehicle was of particularly high value undermined, to some extent, its claimed interest in retaining vehicles for purposes of public safety
• noting that the risk of erroneous deprivation was “substantial” and that post-deprivation proceedings could occur so long after the deprivation that the erroneous deprivation of the plaintiff’s vehicle could not be recompensed
• observing that New York City’s practice of seeking forfeiture only when a vehicle was of particularly high value undermined, to some extent, its claimed interest in retaining vehicles for purposes of public safety
• explaining that a post-seizure hearing should “allow the [neutral magistrate] to consider whether less drastic measures than continued im-poundment, such as a bond or a restrain ing order, would protect the City’s interest in the allegedly forfeitable vehicle”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).