evidence seems to show that police actively procured a private person to tour plaintiffs home with a camera for purposes utterly unconnected with the search warrant they had already executed. Whether this breached the trust under which they held the premises in their complete command, or whether, stated another way, this unreasonably exceeded the scope of the warrant, is a question for a jury in this case. Summary judgment should not have been granted. Id. at 705; see also Buonocore v. Harris, 65 F.3d 347, 358-59 (4th Cir.1995) (agreeing with Bills I that a warrant does not implicitly authorize government officers to invite a private individual to tour plaintiffs home for a mission unrelated to the search authorized by the warrant); Ayeni v. Mottola, 35 F.3d 680, 683 (2d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1689, 131
holding that an agents invitation to a television crew to broadcast a search violated clearly established fourth amendment rights holding that a warrantless search of garbage located within the curtilage of the defendants home violated his fourth amendment rights holding that an fbi agents investigation of the written contents of a notebook that was lawfully in the possession of the fbi constituted a search that violated the defendants fourth amendment rights recognizing cause of action for damages against federal agents acting under their authority who allegedly violated plaintiffs fourth amendment rights holding that search of middle school student violated her fourth amendment rights