Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980) (“In terms that apply equally to seizures of property and to seizures of persons, the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant.”); United States v. U.S. District Court, 407 U.S. 297, 313, 92 S.Ct. 2125, 32 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972) (“[physical entry into the home is the chief evil against which the ... Fourth Amendment is directed....”). Indeed, the only situation in which the Supreme Court has approved a special needs search of an individual’s home occurred in Griffin, 483 U.S. 868, 107 S.Ct. 3164, 97 L.Ed.2d 709, where the defendant was a probationer. Cf. Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 540, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967) (<HOLDING>). That situation is not applicable here. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a warrant was needed to perform an administrative search upon private property (B) holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant (C) holding that an arrest warrant  without a search warrant  does not permit law enforcement authorities to enter a third partys home to legally search for the subject of the arrest warrant (D) holding that defendant officers were entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law where they relied upon consent of property owner to perform search (E) holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises
Output (English): holding that defendant officers were entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law where they relied upon consent of property owner to perform search