United States v. One (1) 1971 Harley-Davidson Motorcycle Serial 4a25791h1, Its Tools and Appurtenances, Michael Ohlmann, Claimant-Appellee

Before CHAMBERS and WALLACE, Circuit Judges, and SMITH, District Judge.

We believe the district court was in error when it denied the forfeiture action of the United States, brought pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 782 , on the basis that the warrantless seizure of the motorcycle was unreasonable. While we do not condone illegal searches and while the district court’s finding is supported by the evidence, that does not answer the question before us. “The mere fact of the illegal seizure, standing alone, does not immunize the goods from forfeiture.” John Bacall Imports, Ltd. v. United States, 412 F.2d 586, 588 (9th Cir. 1969).

Appellee argues that One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693 , 85 S.Ct. 1246 , 14 L.Ed.2d 170 (1965), stands for the proposition that an object illegally seized cannot in any way be used, either as evidence or as the basis for in rem jurisdiction. Plymouth Sedan , however, held only that evidence derived from a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be excluded at a forfeiture proceeding. This was a natural extension of the exclusionary rule enunciated in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961). In the case…