in question has not previously been held unlawful. Instead, qualified immunity can be denied if, “in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness [was] apparent.” Wilson, 526 U.S. at 614-15, 119 S.Ct. 1692. Because “[t]he basic purpose of th[e Fourth] Amendment ... is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials,” Camara, 387 U.S. at 528, 87 S.Ct. 1727, Fourth Amendment protections apply in both civil and criminal contexts. For example, in Camara, the Supreme Court held that even a routine administrative search of a home for compliance with health and safety regulations must comply with the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 537, 87 S.Ct. 1727; see also New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 335, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985) (<HOLDING>) (citing Camara, 387 U.S. at 530, 87 S.Ct.
holding that the second amendment fully applies to state and local regulation through the fourteenth amendment holding that there is no violation of the fourth amendment when the government reasonably believed that the individual giving consent to the search had authority to do so holding that excessive force by a school official should be analyzed under the fourth amendment holding that the fourth amendment and the exclusionary rules are not implicated by a private search holding that the fourth amendment applies to searches conducted by public school officials and noting it would be anomalous to say that the individual and his private property are fully protected by the fourth amendment only when the individual is suspected of criminal behavior