1. “Whether the magistrate judge erred in holding that Mr. Jenkins could not assert a compensable takings claim arising from the federal government’s physical appropriation of his property outside of federal forfeiture proceedings simply because the federal government’s initial seizure fell under a limited exception for temporary deprivations in direct furtherance of law enforcement functions.” 2. “Whether the magistrate judge erred in dismissing Mr. Jenkins’ due-process claim despite the Little Tucker Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity for claims against the United States alleging that property was improperly exacted in contravention of due process.”
1. “While the United States’ police power may insulate it from liability for an initial seizure, there is no police power exception that insulates the United States from takings liability for the period after seized property is no longer needed for criminal proceedings.”
2. “The district court did not err in dismissing this due process claim for lack of jurisdiction.”
