their bail conditions restricted their ability to travel freely. However, because defendants have not raised the issue in their motion papers and there is no record on the question at this tíme, the determination of whether plaintiffs suffered an injury of constitutional proportions as a result of the alleged malicious prosecution must await trial. 27 . The three subsequently seized portfolios are admissible in this action as evidence of probable cause, despite the fact that they were suppressed during Mr. Mejia’s criminal trial, see supra note 23, because the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule does not apply in civil actions other than civil forfeiture proceedings. See Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 363, 118 S.Ct. 2014, 2019, 141 L.Ed.2d 344 (1998) (<HOLDING>); One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Com. of
holding that the exclusionary rule generally does not apply to immigration proceedings holding that exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture proceedings holding that exclusionary rule does apply to civil forfeiture proceedings holding that exclusionary rule does not extend to proceedings other than criminal trials holding that due process requires exclusionary rule to be applied in state trials