Is a driver entitled to a prompt hearing to challenge the seizure of his or her vehicle by the City?

That conclusion is bolstered by our holding in Krimstock v. Kelly , 306 F.3d 40. In Krimstock , we held that drivers whose cars were seized for forfeiture after an arrest for certain crimes for which the car could be considered an instrumentality were entitled to a prompt hearing to contest the legitimacy of the seizure. Id. at 43S44. Noting that "[a] car or truck is often central to a persons livelihood or daily activities," we concluded that "[a]n individual must be permitted to challenge the Citys continued possession of his or her vehicle during the pendency of legal proceedings where such possession may ultimately prove improper and where less drastic measures than deprivation pendente lite are available and appropriate." Id. at 44. We were particularly concerned with "the temporal gap that typically exists between seizure of the vehicle and the forfeiture proceeding."²⁵ Id. at 53. We concluded that "the Due Process Clause requires that claimants be given an early opportunity to test the probable validity of further deprivation, including probable cause for the initial seizure, and to ask whether other measures, short of continued impoundment, would satisfy the legitimate interests of the City in protecting the vehicles from sale or destruction pendente lite ." Id. at 68.