our circumstances, no rule or law cited to this Court equates a violation of statutory notice procedures with a violation of constitutional due process. See id. Such violations would merely present a separate claim for relief under state law. V. Plaintiffs also contend that Defendants’ practice of immobilizing vehicles with boot devices is an unreasonable search and/or seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The procedure is per se unreasonable, they argue, because (1) Defendants did not obtain a warrant prior to immobilization and (2) the immobilization and impoundment was otherwise unauthorized. One of the Fourth Amendment’s purposes is to protect an individual’s property rights in an item seized. See Soldal v. Cook County, Ill., 506 U.S. 56, 62-63, 113 S.Ct. 538, 121 L.Ed.2d 450 (1992)(<HOLDING>). In Soldal, the Supreme Court defined
holding that the fourth amendment protects people not places holding that it is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy spacious as well as clean wellbalanced as well as carefully patrolled holding that the fourth amendment protects property as well as privacy holding fourth amendment protects right to be free from arrest without probable cause holding that orneases unmistakably hold that the fourth amendment protects property as well as privacy