solicitude for this reasonableness requirement must be shown here because physical confinement, whether criminal or civil, implicates a “fundamental liberty interest” and because the length of the confinement is potentially unlimited. As the Supreme Court commented in Zadvydas: A statute permitting indefinite detention of an alien would raise a serious constitutional problem. The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause forbids the Government to “depriv[e]” any “person ... of ... liberty ... without due process of law.” F and should be conditioned on any of the various forms of supervised release that are appropriate in the circumstances ....” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 700, 121 S.Ct. 2491 (emphasis added). Cf. United States ex rel. Pirinsky v. Shaughnessy, 177 F.2d 708, 709 (2d Cir.1949) (<HOLDING>). The Zadvydas Court was troubled by the
holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to civil deportation proceedings and noting the rules incompatibility with the streamlined administrative nature of such proceedings holding no jurisdiction to review order raising amount of bail and questioning jurisdiction to review denial of motion to reduce bond holding that pursuant to 8 usc  1252c the attorney general has the exclusive discretionary authority to release on bail an alien not illegally detained pending a motion to reopen the deportation proceedings subject to review by a district court holding that res judicata applies in deportation proceedings holding that bail of 25000 for an immigrant in deportation proceedings was unreasonable and noting that the amount of bail in each case must be individual as to the amount reasonably designed to insure the aliens necessary attendance upon the proceedings