Whether the defendants' warrantless seizure and search of the plaintiffs' home violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED BY s ° : Lp) We Aw n& De Ve WAN WALD WAG mathe vs wal NY CANS Was ie.) : WA ny e (VAM 20 ‘ fal iw Ocvs RN uk dave Srotess St Vous. Yes Ay wh. D) Waeddacs Te’ és MI 3% 4\0o) ve 3) \WSneNnex Nhe DS endan\’s WedCudfuredy Oo Weosing Bareek Compare Sud Thor ak 3259p ude 4 urknnss Com@aianrl: RNa Thy tidus) _YeS_cX Wns o ry Ca a 4) s Wwe WS ot Swen “reeks o * a ° ss Tuer’s SeRcig\ Shed Rees WA. S downed ion SS Werden Lenars ( Rs) : Weeame § vesshiuns” Sick” \ Reet 7 *®308% Gand Various Went Vv. De das rent Ov icer’s), Yes of e e e 0 2 ~ 5.) Swe we ye FELON Now We WEA Wi Awe N ) At COvGl Vt bY AGUe e RY ty a o MA DIONNE SS cu a COVA eS Velstin Ness’ : OY) alt \eng c * ® &) XS tous se O 8 ae e ° ’ Ne ENSOVTO a RNAS Ase MEONS Ao COS SoA Cond inden eon . Ld e e We © Coy ant so nan 2, WV s Wiel wite pie Ws ° . > a5 . —_ . r os NT s —Y¥S2 oY NO. 9 \ 5 a ° a . wt) Whehes DeFendunts Araswoly ude Wl orsconduct contested Sve conduct a ao ° et ° 2 . Awok 5 Sank, SEES WY ral DWH ayomoes? 2 ov Sor OW ne 200 wOdle men Redors DY CS SINAOCWIBOl. ReMory Dede LANHH7 Al, ‘a £0504 & he ; 0 Ke Oos TOSS Gv ERED > < DOS yet Odo, (Nae 6 = f\s Poe NY bX Yok o WATE ten Res Nery FASS by s Reoosks/ OEE iol Roper rer Wes Gnd Lean oye POT) Reu.dloli Desadrem: Haver Yo A PY WS