began to run on June 2, 1992, and plaintiffs complaint was timely when filed on May 18, 1995. In his objections, Triestman does not claim to have been unaware of the April 21, 1992, search and seizure. Plaintiff should have been aware when the search warrant was presented and the search executed on April 21, 1992, that there was a possible violation of his rights. The district court rejected a claim similar to Triestman’s in Shannon v. Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., 661 F.Supp. 205, 210 (S.D.Ohio 1987). The court there held that plaintiffs’ injury “occurred when their property was seized” and not when they learned the reasons for the search and seizure or that the affidavits in support of search warrants were false. Id. See also Dennis v. Figueroa, 642 F.Supp. 959, 960-61 (D.P.R.1986) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the statute of limitations on
holding that a ruling on preindictment motion that search and seizure were legal collaterally estopped defendant from later moving to suppress evidence claiming that search and seizure were illegal holding that a plaintiffs  1983 claim accrued on the date of the alleged illegal search and seizure holding that section 1983 action for unlawful search and seizure accrued on dates of seizures rather than date on which state court declared the acts illegal holding that  1983 claims accrued when all charges were dismissed rather than a previous date on which the conviction was vacated on the theory that the charges remained pending until the dismissal holding that the cause of action accrued on the date of sale