You should read the actual case, then. There, they clearly define the killing of the dog as a seizure, and cite multiple cases for it. I go through and explain the opinion to you. It contains all this info. And you quibble about words you don't understand and then say I am not providing court cases. I did. Quit being lazy.
Here is Cornell U's legal institute defining "seizure" "A
seizure of
property, within the meaning of the
Fourth Amendment, occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s
possessory interests in the property."
That's a good definition. Pretty fucking simple. If you think the 4th amendment doesn't prevent the police from destroying your property, then you are just wrong, no if's ands or buts. You don't have to look anywhere else for it in the Constitution such as the 9th.
That you would even ask why you need the Constitution to be involved in seeking recourse against the federal government for the destruction of private property shows that you don't really get it, and should be asking questions instead of arguing with me. It's not even debatable.
The 9th Amendment doesn't grant rights, it merely recognizes the existence of unenumerated rights. And what those rights are is not based on what you believe them to be. As a practical matter, if you are looking for protection from the 9th, you are screwed.
The 5th, or 14th, since this was a state actor and not the federal government, would be a possible place to get such a right if it weren't given more explicitly in the 4th. The problem with looking for it there is determining the amount of process you are due would be even squishier than determining what is reasonable under the 4th. Take this example, if you point a gun at a cop, are you due a trial before he takes your life? Of course not. Same would go with a dog. You are due little to no process beyond the grant of the search warrant when a cop executes a warrant like that.
