Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Katz, 389 U.S. at 357, 88 S.Ct. 507. OFAC has directed us to a few cases, however, in which the Supreme Court has analyzed whether a warrantless search was reasonable in the totality of the circumstances — without reference to any specific exception. Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 126 S.Ct. 2193, 165 L.Ed.2d 250 (2006); United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149, 124 S.Ct. 1582, 158 L.Ed.2d 311 (2004); United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 122 S.Ct. 587, 151 L.Ed.2d 497 (2001). We will assume for the purpose of our discussion (but do not decide) that the “ ‘general Fourth Amendment approach,’ ” Samson, 547 U.S. at 848, 126 S.Ct. 2193 (quoting Knights, 534 U.S. at 118, 122 S.Ct. 587), applies equally to warrantless seizures. But see KindHearts I, 647 F.Supp.2d at 878-79 (<HOLDING>). Under this approach, “we examine the totality 
 Holding statements: (A) holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify (B) holding there is no requirement that the government obtains a warrant at the first moment probable cause exists  the touchstone for determining the constitutionality of warrantless searches is one of reasonableness under the circumstances (C) recognizing a presumption of reasonableness (D) holding that there is no general reasonableness approach to warrantless seizures (E) holding that reasonableness analysis applies in general jurisdiction case under federal circuit law
Output (English): holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify