physician would have known that the search was unlawful.” Id. at 548. Thus, in my view, we are bound by our precedent, and we must conclude that the law was clearly established on both points. Even if we were not bound by Booker I, however, I would have no trouble finding that the law was clearly established in February 2010 that an officer cannot use private parties to conduct illegal searches. See, e.g., Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs.’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602, 614, 109 S.Ct. 1402, 103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989) (“Although the Fourth Amendment does not apply to a search or seizure, even an arbitrary one, effected by a private party on his own initiative, the Amendment protects against such intrusions if the private party acted as an instrument or agent qf the Government.”); George, 752 F.3d at 1220 (<HOLDING>); Ellis v. City of San Diego, 176 F.3d 1183,
holding that the fourth amendment protects property as well as privacy holding that the fourth amendment protects people not places holding fourth amendment protects right to be free from arrest without probable cause recognizing that the fourth amendment protects against the use of excessive force by police officers in carrying out an arrest holding that on march 13 2004 it was clearly established that the fourth amendment protects people from medical procedures induced by lawenforcement officers