of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 194-95, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985). In any event, Colaprete does not argue that the alleged theft constituted a taking, let alone that the applicability of the Takings Clause in this situation is clearly established. The Fourth Amendment, however, does protect against conduct of this nature. A seizure of property within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment occurs “when there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property.” United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984). The Fourth Amendment regulates all such interference, and not merely the initial acquisition of possession. See United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 706, 709-10, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983) (<HOLDING>). Because theft by a police officer extends a
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 detention of passenger for warrant check violated fourth amendment absent reasonable suspicion holding that impoundment of a vehicle can be a seizure under the fourth amendment holding that the initial seizure of a suitcase was valid but that the ninetyminute detention of the suitcase violated the fourth amendment holding seizure of evidence in plain view reasonable under fourth amendment