2. In FUENTES v. SHEVIN, 407 U.S. 67, 92 S.Ct. 1983, 32 L.Ed.2d 556, rehearing denied 409 U.S. 902, 93 S.Ct. 177, 34 L.Ed.2d 165 (1972), the Court held, four-to-three, that a state statute authorizing the replevin of consumer goods without a pre-seizure hearing was unconstitutional. The writ of replevin, another provisional remedy, is available to a person claiming a right to possession of the seized property. See The Supreme Court, 1971 Term—

Right to Hearing before Taking of Property, 86 Harv. L. Rev. 85 (1972). The property seized in Fuentes consisted of an oven and a stereo purchased on credit and paid for in installments.

Justice Stewart explained:

There is no requirement that the applicant [for the writ of replevin] make a convincing showing before the seizure that the goods are, in fact,245“wrongfully detained.” Rather, Florida law * * * requires only that the applicant file a complaint, initiating a court action for repossession and reciting in conclusory fashion that he is “lawfully entitled to the possession” of the property, and that he file a security bond * * *.