‘all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.’ ” Id. at 910 (quoting Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 229, 112 S.Ct. 534, 116 L.Ed.2d 589 (1991)) (per curiam) (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 343, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986)). B. § 1983 Claim for Violation of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights 1. Constitutional Violation Plaintiff argues that Officer Faulk violated his constitutional right against unreasonable seizures by impounding the motorcycle without a warrant. Although Plaintiffs complaint does not state a specific constitutional violation, it appears from Plaintiffs opposition papers that he is making a valid claim that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. See United States v. Smith, 790 F.2d 789, 792 (9th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Officer Faulk argues, on the other hand, that
holding that analysis of seizures under the fourth amendment applies only to an initial seizure and subsequent conditions of detention are properly examined under the fourteenth amendment holding seizure of evidence in plain view reasonable under fourth amendment holding that an initially reasonable seizure can become an unreasonable seizure that violates the fourth amendment when officers refuse to return seized property holding warrantless search of defendants automobile four days after impoundment was permissible under requirements of fourth amendment and state constitution where officers had probable cause to search vehicle when it was impounded and that probable cause continued between the time of the impoundment and the search holding that impoundment of a vehicle can be a seizure under the fourth amendment