With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to impound vehicles in violation of parking regulations. 15 . Plaintiffs direct the Court to this decision from the Supreme Court of Louisiana which, in 1985, found some form of mailed notification of a proposed boot order and "a brief period for informal discussion or other communication prior to the issuance of the immobilization order” necessary to satisfy due process. Wilson v. City of New Orleans, 479 So.2d 891, 901 (La. 1985). That case concerned a vehicle that was parked legally at the time it was immobilized, which does not appear to be the case before the Court. See Mandujano Aff. ¶ 5 ("another parking ticket was issued to my vehicle and a 'boot' device was place [sic] on it ...”). But see, City of Los Angeles v. David, 538 U.S. 715, 123 S.Ct. 1895, 155 L.Ed.2d 946 (2003)(<HOLDING>) 16 . To be sure, the Court does not believe

A: holding that parked police vehicle could not constitute other traffic
B: holding that towing of illegally parked vehicles without opportunity for prior hearing did not violate due process
C: holding that delay of several hours after the vehicle was seized was reasonable
D: holding that due process was not violated in a twentyseven day delay in holding a hearing after an illegally parked vehicle was towed
D.