Here's an example, but there are several from them if you visit the link above
Giragosian v. Bettencourt, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 15670, July 29, 2010
Giragosian owned a gun shop. While Giragosian was training a customer to use a handgun, the customer committed suicide by intentionally shooting himself in the head. Along with their own investigation, the local police department contacted the ATF to request that ATF conduct an inspection of the gun shop. After observing several violations of federal firearms regulations the ATF inspector had Giragosian surrender his federal firearms license and seized ten custom gun frames lacking serial numbers from the gun shop.
Giragosian sued the ATF inspector under Bivens, claiming that the inspection and the ATF’s seizure of his federal license and gun frames constituted an unlawful warrantless seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The court held that the ATF inspector did not violate Giragosian’s Fourth Amendment rights by conducting a warrantless search, but rather the search constituted a lawful exercise of the government’s power to inspect the inventory and records of licensed firearms dealers. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(1)(B)(ii), the government may conduct compliance inspections of gun shop premises without either a warrant or reasonable cause, as long as it does not do so more than once in any twelve-month period. The Supreme Court has explicitly upheld the constitutionality of this provision under the Fourth Amendment, holding that the "urgent federal interest" in regulating firearms traffic outweighs any threat to gun dealers' privacy. The ATF inspector’s 2007 compliance inspection of Giragosian's gun shop was the first in twelve months, therefore it met all of the requirements of § 923(g)(1)(B)(ii).
Giragosian also argued that the ATF inspector’s did not qualify as a lawful compliance inspection because he acted on a local police department's request. The court held that § 923 does not prohibit an ATF officer from conducting an inspection at the request of local law enforcement, nor is there any reason to think that Congress intended to prevent ATF officers from carrying out compliance inspections when they have a particular reason to be concerned that violations might exist.
Because no constitutional violation occurred with respect to the warrantless search, the ATF inspector was entitled to qualified immunity.
Click HERE for the court’s opinion.