seizure retention and damaging of the property did not give rise to an actual claim for taping the court reason because and it's now become i don't properly see by the government invoke the police power regardless of the respective benefits to the public and burdens of property and then they explain why the relationship between the power that used there in the intrusion of property there is such that come station so that explains the prohibition on importing goods very counterfeit marks to misrepresent their quality and safety is the kind of exercise that the police car has repeatedly been treated which isn't even in the absence of compensation to the owners of the property and so for example in this case if the government had come to power plants warehouse and confiscated goods because they were adulterated or misbranded i think has to be a very different case insufficient to avoid the birds imposed by the taking call it simply to invoke the police powers of the state regardless of the respective benefits to the public and burden of the property it's not enough to say it's power you have to examine the benefits d because it itself is part of the crime like the like the yacht in the large puerto rican puerto rico case and the car in venice as opposed to property is very different than the power of this issue here if the property if the basis for property is take it as a law or prescribe use of property either because the property itself is lawful is it a kidney or it's counterfeit goods or because the property the lawful like me and used to commit a criminal offense i think that's a very different case and that's a case in which the use of the property  lawful way justifies a specific action against a property rights don't you have here though in the sense of the use of lawful property in an unlawful way because pharmaceuticals  provided in good faith by your client to the facility and in west virginia were to be used improperly in the sense that that corporation or entity or whatever it was was not a lawful children cosmetic act but there's been no suggestion that these goods were in a sealed packages there's nothing in the record to suggest there was anything unlawful in the uses to which these pharmaceuticals were put before the gun become scared all we know is that there's a possibility that they could have been useful as evidence in a trial to convict people who are principles of the country to which we sold well we don't just rest on the government's assertion there i mean they were proceeding under the rules about our position here in our rule forty one is a dialogue is it is a rule that supposed to police the government's need for evidence at trial and if the government takes part in they want to use it for instead of trial the trial judge in that all of the property the trial judge in the criminal cases has to be working on the prosecution of the truth of the prosecution proceeds in a fair way if it happens that there's a taking that's something that that court can't respond to i think that's what the court of federal claims s may not be presented in this case but if it's a power without limit i'd just like you to help me out what the limits off well i think that that's not an issue in this case i mean really what we're talking about is whether whether this i mean is there could you give me an example could you conceive are you saying let me put it this way leaving aside this particular case here for the moment are you saying that there could never be a seizure of  evidence that would not be taken quite viable takings claim i think that's right i think any any seizure of property for use as evidence in a criminal proceeding would be about exercise the government's police power and if you think it's a good faith seizure provide when property is seized you bring an action as was brought here by a mirror source you can bring an action to have the property returned on the roof forty one and as i read the rule and maybe didn't have a right it says that is to be brought in the district where the seizure takes place but here i saw that the action was brought in the district of alabama where i was as i understand it the property was seized at the facility and in west virginia was  owner claim fails is that you know it's just that they're suggesting bill it shifts the focus away from where where it belongs which is on the character the government's action and they would have this court look at instead the character of the  supreme court case there's two i guess or it there were two were there races it was the older supreme court case and it was that goldsmith where the court said we're not presented with the question of what would happen but in order to exercise the police powers there are frequent instances where in fact you do contract or services you will contract a phone lines to run taps and other information you'll contract for hotel rooms adjacent one to the other to set up because you believe that criminal activity will take place you contract with the delivery of contraband with normal u p s delivery services because they are not suspects the government does that all the time and they pay for it i don't know the truth of this but i read that evidently you didn't pay your bills on the phone company took down various lines because they weren't paying if you pay for those things why why don't you see that i won't call them taking one tuesday we need to phone lines to enforce the laws we need these hotel rooms to enforce the laws we need your truck to deliver this to enforce the law why not do that because those things are proper evidence lou think that that i thought the police well the police power goes far beyond just placing evidence before a neutral fact book but you said you'll stick to this case you say this potentially would have potentially and your book for that is the forty one g proceedings right because it never was introduced in evidence the never never was on anyone's exhibit the property in exercise of the government's police power must itself be noxious or must be the instrumentality of a crime doesn't stand up under this court's case in particular but i support look at that one cadillac and there is a perfect example in one cadillac the government seized a car a jury later determined that it wasn't subject to forfeiture because it had not been fishing tell of a crime there's was no suggest in that case that the car itself was noxious or it was  in a vehicle motorboat that polk boat or vehicle can be seized in the by the government but doesn't apply also if say two people are in a vehicle and they're part of their meeting to have a discussion about future sale of narcotics there are no narcotics in the vehicle under those circumstances could there be a seizure and each state has its own forfeiture statute so i think it would and the breath of that particular states of course there is is there some isn't there there are some stats and title twenty one is that there's the innocent owner provision which sometimes i think federal to give a cruise ship back sorry we think you can't keep pushing for five years because that would be otherwise there would be damage to that person and to pay that can't be the right answer if you have an important prosecution and you need the cruise ship the answer is the government has to pay for it i mean that's clearly the right answer is that the government should do the prosecution needs to do it it should spend the resources that if that were the prosecution's burden wholly innocent parties that's got to be more sensible reasonable having a federal district necessary and criminal prosecution typically when drugs are seized in a in a hotel room nobody you know the narcotics are evidence but nobody suggests that they need to do  cation illegal activity there are no cases in which the justification for taking the property is simply we believe to be used as evidence in the closest i think that's why there's a distinction that it shows a case where the court was uncomfortable that in for some for