With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 844. As discussed below, in ordering a probable cause showing, I am not issuing a “retroactive warrant” as KindHearts contends. Rather, I am ordering a probable cause showing as a remedy for the warrantless seizure and prolonged and continuing retention of KindHearts’ assets. I thus find that it is within the scope of my power to remedy constitutional violations to order this post-hoc probable cause showing. I recognize that this is an unusual and atypical remedy, but this is an unusual and atypical situation. b. Post-Seizure Review I find the analogy the government draws to forfeiture law instructive. Civil forfeiture implicates both the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. See U.S. v. James Daniel Good Real Prop. (James Daniel Good), 510 U.S. 43, 48-49, 114 S.Ct. 492, 126 L.Ed.2d 490 (1993) (<HOLDING>); see also One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v.

A: holding that exclusionary rule does apply to civil forfeiture proceedings
B: holding that the exclusionary rule under the fourth amendment applies to civil forfeiture proceedings
C: holding discovery rules apply to civil forfeiture proceedings
D: holding that both fourth amendment warrant and probable cause and fifth amendment due process requirements apply to civil forfeiture proceedings
D.