continues to be, greatest with respect to the search of a private home. United States v. Unites States Dist. Ct for Eastern Dist. of Mich., 407 U.S. 297, 318, 92 S.Ct. 2125, 2134, 32 L.Ed.2d 752, 764 (1972) (“[Pjhysical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed”) “[A]t the very core of Fourth Amendment, ‘stands the right of a [person] to retreat into [her] own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.’ ” Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. at 31, 121 S.Ct. at 2041, 150 L.Ed.2d at 100, quoting Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511, 81 S.Ct. 679, 683, 5 L.Ed.2d 734, 739 (1961). Undergirding, and forming the foundation for, this jealously guarded and rigid protecti 1093, 1098, 108 L.Ed.2d 276, 286 (1990) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 121,
holding that as an incident to arrest the officers could as a precautionary matter and without probable cause or reasonable suspicion that persons were actually in the areas look in closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched holding fourth amendment protects right to be free from arrest without probable cause recognizing that an immigration arrest and detention needs to be supported by probable cause or reasonable suspicion holding that arrest was unsupported by probable cause but granting qualified immunity to defendants who made the arrest in reliance on communications with other officers holding that the courts determination of whether an officer had probable cause for an arrest is an independent and objective determination and an officers own subjective reason for the arrest is irrelevant