context: The Supreme Court never indicated, however, that the exercise of physical control over the defendant real property should be regarded as the sine qua non of a constitutionally cognizable seizure. To the contrary, the Supreme Court employed the term seizure more broadly to refer to governmental action that deprived claimant Good of significant property interests.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 466 U.S. 109, 113
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that, in the Fourth Amendment context, "[a] 'seizure' of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property"
citation_a.sentence: See Good, 510 U.S. at 49, 114 S.Ct. at 498 (stating that “[t]he Government does not, and could not, dispute that the seizure of Good’s home and four-acre parcel deprived him of property interests protected by the Due Process Clause”); see also United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 1656, 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984) (holding that, in the Fourth Amendment context, “[a] ‘seizure’ of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 510 U.S. 49, 49
citation_b.parenthetical: stating that "[t]he Government does not, and could not, dispute that the seizure of Good's home and four-acre parcel deprived him of property interests protected by the Due Process Clause"
citation_b.sentence: See Good, 510 U.S. at 49, 114 S.Ct. at 498 (stating that “[t]he Government does not, and could not, dispute that the seizure of Good’s home and four-acre parcel deprived him of property interests protected by the Due Process Clause”); see also United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 1656, 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984) (holding that, in the Fourth Amendment context, “[a] ‘seizure’ of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property”).