the FTCA would not preclude liability simply because the act at issue involved the exercise of a uniquely governmental function. The plaintiffs have asked the Court to find a broader analogy for their unlawful entry and search claim, reasoning that private individuals could also be liable if they impermissibly entered and searched another’s home. The plaintiffs are right that private individuals could be liable for entering, searching, and trespassing onto another’s property without permission. However, the broader analogy in this case still would not translate into a tort claim for unlawful entry and search. The Court is simply not free to derive analogs from instances where only state law enforcement officers would be liable under state law. See Olson, 546 U.S. at 46, 126 S.Ct. 510 (<HOLDING>). Rather, the Court finds that the appropriate
holding section 1010215 does not waive governmental immunity merely because a governmental action falls within the listed governmental functions thus further inquiry under the act is necessary holding that removal to federal court does not waive tribal sovereign immunity holding that a state may waive its sovereign immunity holding governmental immunity is no defense to contractual liability holding that the federal government does not waive its immunity where there is no private counterpart even when uniquely governmental functions are involved