Fell v. Armour
District Court, M.D. Tennessee
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGray, Chief District Judge
I concur in the Court’s conclusion that the Act in question violates the Constitution of the United States because the post-seizure procedures prescribed by the Act fail to meet the standards of the Fourteenth Amendment. I believe, however, that the pre-seizure provisions of the Act are also constitutionally impermissible, and I must, therefore, respectfully dissent from the conclusion that due process protections do not apply to such provisions.
Specifically, I believe that the Constitution prohibits the warrantless seizure, not incident to an arrest, of a vehicle and requires provisions for…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Fuentes v. ShevinSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- United States v. United States Coin & CurrencySupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- J. W. Goldsmith, Jr.-Grant Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- The PalmyraSupreme Court of the United States · 1827
- Dobbins's Distillery v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.