— to the prosecutor violated his constitutional rights. Again, we conclude that no settled authority established the illegality of the officer’s conduct. Taylor first alleges that this failure to disclose deprived him of his right to due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court, however, has made plain that “[t]he Fourth Amendment was tailored explicitly for the criminal justice system, and its balance between individual and public interests always has been thought to define the ‘process that is due’ for seizures of person or property in criminal cases, including the detention of suspects pending trial.” Gerstein, 420 U.S. at 125 n. 27, 95 S.Ct. at 869 n. 27; see Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 142-46, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 2693-96, 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979) (<HOLDING>). And, the Court recently held that no
holding that both fourth amendment warrant and probable cause and fifth amendment due process requirements apply to civil forfeiture proceedings holding under the fourth amendment that a judicial determination of probable cause is a prerequisite to any extended restraint on the liberty of an adult accused of crime holding that under fourth amendment standards for determining probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search and seizure are same holding that determination of probable cause by detached judicial officer that complies with fourth amendment constitutes all of the process due in order to constitutionally detain an accused pending trial holding that pretrial detention resulting from legal process unsupported by probable cause violates the fourth amendment