Opinion ID: 588114
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Muro's likelihood of success on the merits.

Text: 55 Our conclusion of error does not mean, however, that the seizure must now be vacated. Due process requires notice and the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time. After the seizure of Statewide's assets, Muro was given ample opportunity to be heard and to be heard promptly, yet he presented nothing that would require a contrary result. We are thus constrained to agree with Judge Nickerson that [n]one of the papers submitted on behalf of the movants has refuted the government's case, and we will not disturb the district court's ultimate decision not to vacate the seizure of Statewide's assets. While the Muros and their attorneys have raised impassioned polemics against the forfeiture system--pleas which do not fall on entirely deaf ears in this court--they provided no reason whatsoever for the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing, let alone to vacate the seizure. Muro has been provided the opportunity to be heard on paper, and he has produced nothing of evidentiary value that would cause the district court to vacate or modify the seizure. Finally, Muro never requested an evidentiary hearing in the district court. Put slightly differently, Muro, who will bear the burden of proof at the forfeiture trial, see 19 U.S.C. § 1615, has thus far shown no likelihood of success on the merits. 56 Of course, an illegal seizure of property does not immunize that property from forfeiture,    the property itself cannot be excluded from the forfeiture action, and    evidence obtained independent of the illegal seizure may be used in the forfeiture action. United States v. $37,780 in United States Currency, 920 F.2d 159, 163 (2d Cir.1990). The unlawfulness of the initial seizure would only preclude the government from introducing any evidence gained by its improper seizure of the premises pursuant to the warrant of November 15, 1991. Livonia, 889 F.2d at 1266.