unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” U.S. Const, amend. IV. 27 . There is no contention that defendants here were conducting an administrative inspection of a "closely regulated” industry, a circumstance which would change the analysis. See id. 28 . As Soldal made clear, the Fourth Amendment protects property interests as well as expectations of privacy. See Soldal, 113 S.Ct. at 543. 29 . As noted earlier, we will dismiss plaintiffs’ claims against the Chester County Sheriff's Department as an improper defendant. See supra. As plaintiffs have sued all of the remaining defendants in their official capacities, however, plaintiffs have in essence sued Chester County. See Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Monell, 436 U.S. at 690 n. 55, 98 S.Ct. 2018
holding that a damages suit against a state officer in his official capacity was barred because it was functionally a suit against the state holding that suit against county sheriff in his official capacity was suit against county holding that an official capacity suit should be treated as a suit against the entity holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the officials office holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state