only in the discretion of the police’.” 392 U.S. at 22 (quoting Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 97, 13 L. Ed. 2d 142, 85 S. Ct. 223 (1964)). Moreover, all governmental enactments are subject to Fourth Amendment scrutiny and must comply with all constitutional requirements. See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 85 L. Ed. 2d 1, 105 S. Ct. 1694 (1985) (striking down the Tennessee statute authorizing the use of deadly force against unarmed subject as violative of the Fourth Amendment); Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 325, 56 L. Ed. 2d 305, 98 S. Ct. 1816 (1978) (overturning Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, “in so far as it purports to authorize inspections without warrant or its equivalent.”); Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 61, 20 L. Ed. 2d 917, 88 S. Ct. 1889 (1968) (<HOLDING>); Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 34, 10 L. Ed.
holding that an agreement in violation of antitrust laws may be enforceable where the parties underlying conduct is legal holding in conflict of laws analysis that it was proper to apply the law of the state of washington as to the measure of damages which involved the substantive rights of the parties holding that in interpreting a contract we look to the conflict of laws rules of  the forum state  to determine which states laws will be controlling holding that congress did not authorize the states to enforce federal law where it gave states regulatory control through enforcement of their own laws 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