him, I can tell you that. I mean, the guy got out of his truck and the dog was running. I never seen the dog come at the officer at all.” (J.A. at 300.) Again, without considering any of the nonlethal options available to him, Moxley chose to shoot a dog that presented no immediate danger. With the facts of each incident fully summarized, it is now necessary to determine whether the unconstitutionality of each of these unreasonable, warrantless seizures was “clearly established” at the time of the incidents. See Figg v. Schroeder, 312 F.3d at 635-36. The Supreme Court made it clear more than a decade ago that an individual’s personal property is an “effect” for purposes of Fourth Amendment analysis. See Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 62, 113 S.Ct. 538, 121 L.Ed.2d 450 (1992) (<HOLDING>). As the majority observes, the State of North
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 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 holding that the fourth amendment protects people not places holding that the fourth amendment protects property as well as privacy