Robert Siebert and Pamela Siebert v. David Severino

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “removal of an animal constitutes a ‘seizure’ for purposes of the Fourth Amendment”
• concluding that exigent circumstances did not justify the warrantless seizure of horses because standing in a muddy pasture, drinking from streams, and being exposed to cold temperatures do not constitute exigent circumstances
• concluding that pre‐seizure hearing may have been required where animals were removed based on report of “volunteer investigator who apparently lacked sufficient knowledge about horses to determine whether appropriate care was given”
• concluding that pre‐seizure hearing may have been required where animals were removed based on report of “volunteer investigator who apparently lacked sufficient knowledge about horses to determine whether appropriate care was given”
• concluding that pre‐seizure hearing may have been required where animals were removed based on report of “volunteer investigator who apparently lacked sufficient knowledge about horses to determine whether appropriate care was given”
• holding that the seizure of a horse is a Fourth Amendment event

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).