“neither minor nor ministerial matters,” Walling, 327 U.S. at 217 n.57, 66 S.Ct. 494, “[i]f an agency’s subpoena satisfies these requirements, [a court] must enforce it,” Thornton, 41 F.3d at 1544. To the extent the Fourth Amendment is implicated by the use of an administrative subpoena, satisfaction of these requirements also satisfies that amendment. See Walling, 327 U.S. at 208, 66 S.Ct. 494 (“[T]he Fourth [Amendment], if applicable, at the most guards against abuse only by way of too much indefiniteness or breadth in the things required to be ‘particularly described,’ if also the inquiry is one the demanding agency is authorized by law to make and the materials specified are relevant.”); see also City of Los Angeles v. Patel, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2443, 2453, 192 L.Ed.2d 435 (2015) (<HOLDING>). Ordinarily, “an investigation terminates once
holding that mere insertion of key was not a search or at least not an unreasonable search protected by the fourth amendment holding that  1983 claims may be joined with an administrative review holding for an administrative search to be constitutional under the fourth amendment the subject of the search must be afforded an opportunity to obtain precompliance review before a neutral decisionmaker which requirement would be satisfied by an administrative subpoena holding that the fourth amendment requires that a defendant be allowed an opportunity to challenge the veracity of an affidavit supporting a search warrant holding that the discovery of evidence of crimes in the course of an otherwise proper administrative inspection does not render that search illegal or the administrative scheme suspect