With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". However, Chicago Heights is in direct conflict with binding precedent of this court. In United States v. Premises and Real Property at 4492 South Livonia Rd., we held that the seizure of a home under the drug forfeiture laws violated due process when the owner was not afforded notice and a pre-deprivation hearing. 889 F.2d 1258, 1265 (2d Cir.1989). In commenting on the remedy, we noted that an illegal seizure standing alone did not immunize property from forfeiture. We therefore held, “[i]n this case, the unlawfulness of the seizure ... would only preclude the government from introducing any evidence gained by its improper seizure of the premises pursuant to the two warrants issued the day before.” Id. at 1266. See also, Boero v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 111 F.3d 301, 307 (2d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). That our precedent on this issue was decided

A: holding that exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture proceedings
B: holding that retroactive award of benefits proper remedy where district court made finding that claimant was disabled
C: holding that where notice was deficient in administrative forfeiture proceedings proper remedy was to grant claimant right to a hearing
D: holding that district courts have jurisdiction to review a claim that a person received inadequate notice of completed administrative forfeiture proceedings
C.