therefore affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on these grounds. IV. The remaining issue is whether the police officers are entitled to qualified immunity. On appeal, the Flatfords advance a Fourth Amendment challenge to the officers’ assistance in effectuating the eviction without a warrant or other court order. The Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth, guarantees the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const, amend. TV. The Fourth Amendment not only protects criminal suspects but also limits governmental intrusions in civil contexts. See Camara v. Municipal Court of San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523, 539, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 1736, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967) (<HOLDING>). Whether officers should be immune from
holding that a plaintiff stated a fourth amendment claim where consecutive bodycavity searches were unnecessary holding that policy requiring strip searches of prisoners prior to transfer did not violate fourth amendment holding that inmates fourth amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives hudson holding that the fourth amendment proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures was applicable to the states under the fourteenth amendment so that evidence seized in violation of the constitution could no longer be used in state courts holding that fourth amendment applicable in administrative searches for safety inspections