must do so in a reasonable maimer. “Officers evision crew to be present and that the deputies permitted their presence during the search. Unlike the search warrants in the cases cited above, however, the warrant at issue authorized “videotaping and photographing” during the execution of the search. Therefore, even though the warrant said nothing about a television crew, the defendants were justified, under the explicit language of the warrant, in permitting the accompaniment of camera personnel. TV Stack asserts that the qualified immunity defense is not available to the private parties involved in the search, Duncan and Killian. Qualified immunity is generally not available to private parties. See Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158, 168-69, 112 S.Ct. 1827, 1833-34, 118 L.Ed.2d 504 (1992) (<HOLDING>); cf. McKnight v. Rees, 88 F.3d 417, 420 (6th
holding qualified immunity unavailable because there was no government interest to balance holding that the waiver of immunity from other liability did not explicitly waive immunity from prejudgment attachment but supporting the attachment on other grounds holding that a state defendant waives sovereign immunity when it removes a state court case to federal court thereby deliberately invoking the federal courts subject matter jurisdiction holding qualified immunity defense unavailable to the united states in ftca action holding that immunity unavailable to private parties responsible for invoking state replevin garnishment or attachment statute