a public use.); see also Kam-Almaz v. United States, 682 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed.Cir.2012) (explaining that property seized and retained pursuant to the police power is not taken for a "public use"); Steward v. United States, 80 Fed.Cl. 540, 543 (Fed.Cl.2008) ("[The loss, depreciation or damage of items confiscated in the context of a criminal investigation cannot be the basis of a takings claim in this court."). 7 . See also United States v. One 1979 Cadillac Coupe De Ville, 833 F.2d 994, 1000 (Fed.Cir. 1987) (noting that an acquittal "did not make the government seizure and possession [of property related to the crime with which the defendant was charged but ultimately acquitted] any less proper, or convert that seizure into a taking"); Seay v. United States, 61 Fed.Cl. 32, 33-35 (2004) (<HOLDING>). 8 . See, eg, § 25-1.5-106, C.R.S.2013; §§
holding that the subject of a criminal investigation did not state a takings claim even though a ruptured pipe at a government storage facility had rendered his property nearly worthless and despite the fact that he was never indicted holding that a defendant did not otherwise defend even though he had appeared before the court holding that the plaintiff filed suit within the statute of limitations even though he could not prove the time at which he mailed his petition holding that sufficient evidence supported a federal conviction for aiding and abetting the unlawful possession of a firearm when there was evidence that the defendant had driven the ultimate possessors of the pipe bomb to a store had purchased gunpowder for them with the understanding that they planned to use it to build pipe bombs had observed the possessors build the pipe bombs in his garage using his tools had seen the finished product and had told the possessors to go light the pipe bombs somewhere else holding that the appellant had not changed his residence from his registered address despite the fact that the house had never had electricity service during the time that he had lived there