fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § -2520(b)(3). We review that order for abuse of discretion. 18 U.S.C. § 2520(b)(3). The district court is correct in its conclusion that courts recognize that an illegally taped conversation is admissible for impeachment. Two of our sister circuits have considered the issue and reached such a conclusion. In United States v. Caron, 474 F.2d 506 (5th Cir.1973), a criminal defendant denied during cross examination that he was engaged in bookmaking. In rebuttal and for impeachment purposes; the government sought to introduce, without a prior evidentiary hearing, taped conversations of the defendant which indicated his involvement in bookmaking. The Fifth Circuit held’that in light of Walder v. United States, 347 U.S. 62, 74 S.Ct. 354, 98 L.Ed. 503 (1954) (<HOLDING>), that even if the wire tap had been illegal,
holding that a confession obtained in violation of miranda was admissible for impeachment holding that a dog that was destroyed by the police department was obviously  seized within the meaning of the fourth amendment holding that the fourth amendment proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures was applicable to the states under the fourteenth amendment so that evidence seized in violation of the constitution could no longer be used in state courts holding on facts similar to this case that when evidence seized in violation of the fourth amendment is the only evidence underlying a conviction a successful civil challenge would necessarily imply the invalidity of the conviction holding that evidence seized in violation of a defendants fourth amendment rights was admissible for purposesof impeachment