are limited; appellate review of state court decisions is contingent upon state consent to suit in state court, and is also called into,question by the majority’s rationale, see supra, at 114; and the Court’s decision today illustrates the uncertainty that the Court will always permit enforcement of federal law by suits for prospective relief against state officers. Moreover, the majority’s position ignores the importance of citizen suits to enforcement of federal law. See, e. g., Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U. S. 240,263 (1975) (acknowledging that, in many instances, “Congress has opted to rely heavily on private enforcement to implement public policy”); see also S. Rep. No. 94-1011, p. 2 (Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976,42 U. S. C. § 1988) (<HOLDING>); Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’
recognizing that all of these civil rights laws depend heavily upon private enforcement recognizing that civil rights lawsuits are private only in form recognizing that laws and regulations may bear upon the existence of a constitutional interest holding that although a state may be free to develop its own laws of search and seizure to meet law enforcement needs such laws may not authorize police conduct which trenches upon fourth amendment rights regardless of the labels which it attaches to such conduct recognizing private right of action