On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a reply from CFPB that improperly told me, concerning my following complaint, XXXX, that your Agy   does not handle criminal acts and conducted engaged in by State , County, local law enforce-ment officers. These Courts ' holdings do give your agency full and complete authority to seek to handle these 'criminals ' that violate FDCPA, FTC Act and other Federal crimes codes under the 4th Cir. and U.S. Supreme Court decisions : XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX, 4th Cir. XXXX ; XXXX v. XXXX County, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ; and In re : XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). 

Too, CFPB releases a joint criminal press release against debt collectors ' illegal conduct that has law enforcement officers, deputies do a debt collector 's criminal 4th Am. violations exactly like this criminal complaint CFPB was enacted to protect against. See. CFPB and FTC joint PRESS RELEASE. XX/XX/XXXX ; and court decisions/holdings cited above. 
Held : The seizure and removal of the trailer home implicated petitioners ' Fourth Amendment rights. Pp. 61-72. 

( a ) A " seizure '' of property occurs when " there is some meaningful interference with an individual 's possessory interests in that property. '' United States v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. The language of the Fourth Amendment - which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures of " their persons, houses, papers, and effects '' - cuts against the novel holding below, and this Court 's cases unmistakably hold that the Amendment protects property even where privacy or liberty is not implicated. See, e.g., ibid. ; XXXX v. United States,XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. This Court 's " plain view '' decisions also make untenable the lower court 's construction of the Amendment. If the Amendment 's boundaries were defined exclusively by rights of privacy, " plain view '' seizures, rather than being scrupulously subjected to Fourth Amendment inquiry, Arizona v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, would not implicate that constitutional provision at all. Contrary to the Court of Appeals ' [ XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ] position, the Amend-ment protects seizure even though no search within its meaning has taken place. See, e.g., XXXX, XXXX, at 120-125. Also contrary to that court 's view, XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, does not require a court, when it finds that a wrong implicates more than one constitutional command, to look at the dominant character of the challenged conduct to determine under which constitutional standard it should be evaluated. Rather, each constitutional provision is examined in turn. See, e.g., XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX. Pp. 61-71. 

( b ) The instant decision should not foment a wave of new litigation in the federal courts. Activities such as repossessions or attachments, if they involve entering a home, intruding on individuals ' privacy, or interfering with their liberty, would implicate the Fourth Amendment even on the Court of Appeals ' own terms. And numerous seizures of this type will survive constitutional scrutiny on " reasonableness '' grounds. Moreover, it is unlikely that the police will often choose to further an enterprise knowing that it is contrary to the law, or proceed to seize property in the absence of objectively reasonable grounds for doing so. Pp. 71-72. 

942 F.2d 1073, reversed and remanded. 
XXXX, XXXX, delivered the opinion of a unanimous court. 
================= Accordingly, your Enacted Agency signed by Pres. Obama in XX/XX/XXXX, has held, totally adverse to and contrary of CFPB'S/FTC 'S joint task forces to collectively prosecute all law enforcement agencies that conspire with NCC , County Tax Admin . 

Therefore, it is seriously URGENT that your Agy must handle my Illegal Debt Collections by NCC and XXXX Tax Collections.