offer post-seizure evidence showing the probable validity of retention during the pendency of proceedings. Thus, the legality of a seizure typically will be a subset of the larger due process question of the legitimacy of continued impoundment pendente lite. II. The Role of the Fourth Amendment in Civil Forfeiture The Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment protects claimants against unreasonable seizures of their property in the civil forfeiture context. See United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43, 49, 114 S.Ct. 492, 126 L.Ed.2d 490 (1993) (“The Fourth Amendment does place restrictions on seizures conducted for purposes of civil forfeiture ....”); see also One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693, 696, 700, 85 S.Ct. 1246, 14 L.Ed.2d 170 (1965) (<HOLDING>); cf. In re Seizure of All Funds in Accounts in
holding that an exception to the fourth amendment exclusionary rule applies where the police would have obtained the evidence if no illegality had occurred recognizing good faith exception to fourth amendment exclusionary rule holding that the exclusionary rule under the fourth amendment applies to civil forfeiture proceedings holding that both fourth amendment warrant and probable cause and fifth amendment due process requirements apply to civil forfeiture proceedings holding that exclusionary rule does apply to civil forfeiture proceedings