to attend all court hearings including trial and arraignment and was required to contact Pretrial Services on a weekly basis, and he was prohibited from traveling outside of New Jersey. Id. Here it is uncontradicted that the plaintiff surrendered pursuant to an arrest warrant; therefore, the legal process requirement is met. She had her liberty restricted in the following manner: she surrendered pursuant to an arrest warrant and attended her arraignment, she was required to post $500.00 bond, and she was further required to attend all proceedings pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.Pro. 526. Gallo, controls and we find that the plaintiff had her liberty sufficiently restricted to be considered “seized” under the Fourth Amendment. See also Williams v. Fedor, 69 F.Supp.2d 649, 670 (M.D.Pa.1999) (<HOLDING>). Defendant Murray cites Bristow v. Clevenger,
holding that the defendants oral promise to appear was insufficient to amount to a required appearance within the meaning of the failure to appear statute holding a person who is not a member of the bar of any court  may appear pro se but is not qualified to appear in the district court or in this court as counsel for others holding that a traffic ticket that required a plaintiff to appear at hearing and answer to charges was not a seizure holding that the requirements inherent in the criminal process  that the accused submit to processing and appear in court as required  are sufficient restraints on liberty to constitute a seizure holding that the failure to appear in court pursuant to a court order can constitute direct criminal contempt