Ulmer G. Wilson, a New Orleans realtor, was unhappy when he discovered an immobilizing "boot" on his car. A note on the car's window gave a number to call to retrieve the car. After calling, Wilson became even more unhappy. He was expected to pay $630 for previous parking violations and a $30 boot-removal fee. Wilson refused to pay, and the car was stored. The decision to boot Wilson's car had been made by Datacom, a private business under contract with the city to collect unpaid parking violations, receiving a commission on all it collected. The decision to boot was made by Datacom based on a city ordinance allowing for immobilization of vehicles with three or more unpaid parking violations. Wilson had at least 20 parking tickets; nevertheless, he contested the booting as a taking of his property without due process of law. He contended that the booting took place without proper notice and that Datacom's determination to boot was made by a partial decision maker who did not offer Wilson a hearing before booting the car. Was Wilson denied his right to a fair hearing with an impartial decision maker?