FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT APRI L11, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK

Honora ble Cecilia M. Altonag a, United States District Judge f or the Southern District of * Florida , sitti ngby

designation. [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11826

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 0 2 7 2 3 - C V- T - 2 4 - T GW D O U G L A S M C C L I S H , E D M U N D H O L M B E R G , P la in tif f s - A p p e lla n ts , v ersu s R I C H A R D B . N U G E N T , S h e r if f o f H e r n a n d o C o u n ty , i n h i s o ffi ci al cap aci ty, S H A W N T E R R Y , D e p u ty , in d iv id u a lly , e t. a l, D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A p r i l 11, 2007) B ef ore A N D E R S O N and M A R C U S , C i rc ui tJudg es and A L T O N A G A , D i stri ct * J u d g e .2

M A R C U S , C i rc ui tJudg e: I n thi s c i vi l r i ght s c a s e , A ppe l l a nt s E dm und H ol m be r g ( “ H ol m be r g” ) a nd D ou gl as M cC l i sh (“ M cC l i sh”) appeal fr om the di stri ctcourt ’ s e nt ry of fi nal sum m ary j ud gm entfor A pp el l ee s D eput y S haw n T erry , D eput y C hri st op her C a l de r one , a nd S he r i f

f R i c ha r d B . N uge nt , a l l of the H e r na ndo C ounty , F l or i da S h er iff’s O ff

ice. A fter th o ro u g h re v iew , w e a ff irm th e d istrict co u rt’s de t e r m i na t i on tha tD e puty T e r r y w a s e nt i t l e d t o qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty f

ore f f e c t i ng a w arra nt l es s a rr es tof M cC l i sh w i thi n h i s hom e. H ow ever , beca use H ol m berg w as ne ve rc onvi c t e d of

a c r i m e , w e r e ve r s e the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s j udgm e nttha thi s § 1983 w rong ful arre stcl ai m w as barr ed by H ec k v . H um ph re y, 51 2 U . S . 47 7 (19 94 ). Fi n a l l y , w e r e v e r s e th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d i s mi s s a l o f A p p e l l a n t s ’ s t a t e l a w c l a i ms p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 6 7 ( c ) ( 3 ) a n d r e m a n d th o s e c la im s a s w e ll.

I. T a ki ng the e vi de nc e i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor a bl e t o the a ppe l l a nt s , the es se nt i al fa ct s a nd procedural hi st ory a re these . E dm un d H ol m berg and D ou gl as M c Cl i s h l i v e d i n a tr a i l e rh o me i n Br o o k s v i l l e , Fl o r i d a . A ta p p r o x i ma t e l y 4 : 0 0 p . m. on O c t obe r13, 2001, D e put i e s S ha w n T e rr y a nd C l i f f or d G r ove s of

the H e r na ndo C o u n ty S h er iff’s O ff

ice r es p o n d ed to a c o m p lain t fro m M cC li sh an d H o lm b er g ’sIn the pleading s below, appe llants alleg ed that Deputy Terr y beca me hostile when a sked 1 to leave theproper

ty , makingverbal threats and refusingto leave until Deputy Grove s persua ded him to walk away . Plaintiff’s Statement of Material Fa ct ¶ 13 (c iting Terry Civil Depo. 37- 38). Terr y ’s c ivi l depo sition

trans c ript m ake s n o re ferenc eto t his . 3 nei gh bo rs , the P adzurs , w ho sa i d t hatH ol m berg had b ee n scr ea m i ng profani t i es at the m a c r os s the l i ne s e pa r a t i ng the tw o pr ope r t i e s . T he c om pl a i ntdi d notm e nt i on M c C lis h , w h o w a s n o t h o m e w h e n th e d e p u tie s f ir s t a r r iv e d . T h e d e p u tie s m e t w ith th e P ad zu rs an d th en , st ep p i n g o v er a d o w n ed fen ce sep arat i n g th e tw o p ro p ert i es, i nform ed H ol m berg and M cC l i sh of the com pl ai nt . T he un derl yi ng confl i ct b etw een th e n ei g h b o rs seem s t o h av e ari sen o v er a p ro p erty d i sp u t e. M cC l i sh be l i e ve d tha tthe ne i ghbor s ha d s t ol e n pa r tof hi s pr ope r ty , a nd a num be rof the in c id e n ts in v o lv in g th r e a ts o rp r o f a n ity s h o u te d a c r o s s th e p r o p e r ty lin e s e e m to have occurre d w hen M i chae l P adzur w as cl ea ri ng brush from the di sput ed ar ea . H ol m berg m etthe depu t i es partw ay betw ee n t he prop er ty l i ne and h i s hom e, a nd M c C l i s h a r r i ve d hom e s hor t l y the r e a f t e r . M c C l i s h r e a c t e d a ngr i l y t o the pr e s e nc e of

the de put i e s on hi s pr ope r ty . A c c or di ng t o T e r r y , M c C l i s h s a i d, “ [ T ] he s he r i f f’ s of f i c e i s a bunc h of

N a z i s . . . . T hi s i s A m e r i c a . A m a n c a n ha ve r i ght s on hi s ow n p roperty. ” T erry C ri m . D epo. 19 . A ft era c on vers at i on thatD eput y G roves c o n c lu d e d “w a s n ’t h e a d in g a n y w h e r e ,” th e d e p u tie s c r o s s e d b a c k o v e rth e p r o p e r ty l i ne t o t he P adzur re si dence. 1 T he P adzurs desc ri bed for the depu t i es a l i t any of abu se al l egedl y s uffe re d at4

the ha nds of

H ol m be r g a nd M c C l i s h, i nc l udi ng thr e a t s t o ki l l m e m be r s of the f a m i l y , e pi the t s ( “ F uc ki ng w hi t e tr a s h” ) , a nd f i r i ng guns i nt o the a i ra l ong the p r o p e r ty lin e . T h e P a d z u r s c o m p la in e d th a t th e S h e r if f’s O f f ic e h a d f a ile d to resp o n d t o m u l t i p l e req u est s fo r h el p an d th atth ey feared fo r th ei r safety. S t a t e m e nt s t a ke n f

r om va r i ous m e m be r s of the P a dz urf

a m i l y i nc l ude d r e m a r ks s u c h a s “E d [ H o lm b e r g ] a n d D o u g [ M c C lis h ] a r e g e ttin g m o r e v io le n t in th e ir a c t i ons a nd w or ds , ” “ D oug s a i d he w a nt e d t o ki l l us , ” a nd “ I a l s o thi nk tha t[ D oug] s ta lk s u s b e c a u s e a t n ig h t h e d r iv e s b y a r e [ s ic ] h o u s e a t n ig h t r e a l s lo w o n h is g o lf c a r ta nd s t a r e s . . . . ” M c C l i s h de ni e d m a ki ng a ny thr e a t s t ow a r ds the f a m i l y a nd d en i ed th ath e o r H o l m b erg ev er fi red a w eap o n t o h arass th e P ad zu rs. A s th e d ep u t i es sp o k e w i th th e P ad zu rs o u t si d e th e P ad zu r h o m e, M cC l i sh i nt e r m i t t e nt l y obs e r ve d the i nt e r a c t i on f r om hi s hom e . A ts om e poi ntdur i ng the i nt er vi ew , M cC l i sh go ti n h i s c ar , drov e pas tthe P adzur property, and yel l ed s om e thi ng outthe w i ndow of hi s c a r . D e puty T e r r y c l a i m e d tha tM c C l i s h s hout e d, “I 'm g o in g to k ill y o u , b itc h . Y o u ’ll s e e , b itc h .” T e r r y A f f . ¶ 1 3 . M c C lis h f

la tly deni ed thi s. R ather, M cC l i sh sa i d t hathe ye l l ed, “ If they’ re t el l i ng you som e m ore l i es abou tus, forgeti t . S he’ s a l i ar , ” M cC l i sh A ff . ¶ 7 , and t hatthi s c om m entw as di re ct ed atthe offi ce rs , no tatM rs . P adzur, M cC l i sh D epo. 10 9. D eput y G roves t e s t i f i e d onl y tha tM c C l i s h “ y e l l e d s om e thi ng f r om hi s ve hi c l e , ” a nd s a i d tha theThe fact that Ter ry had “observed some of

Mr. McClish’s behavior f irsthand” “ tipped” 2 him towards see king to a

rre st McClish rather than Holmberg . Terr y Civil Depo. 55. At the end of the investig ation, Terr

y thought that he“proba

bly” could have ar

rested H olmbergfor ag gravated stalking , too. I d. McClish does not contest the district court’s de termination that prob a blec a us ee xiste d f

or his arre st. B e c a

us ethedis tric t c ourt

dispo se d o f H olm

berg ’s c laim under H eck v. Humphrey, as discussed infra, the c ourt did not make a f inding a s to whether there was proba

ble ca use to arrest Holmberg . The Of fenseReport filed by

Deputy Terr y ref ers to the of

fenseof ag gravated stalking 3 un der F lorida

Statut e s se c tio n 7 84 .0 48 (3 ). Th is s e c tio n p ro vid e s: Any person who w illfully , maliciously , and repeate dly follows, hara sses, or cy berstalks a

nother person, and make s a credible thre at with the intent to place that person in re asonablefea r of de ath or bodily

injury of the person, or the person’ s child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, c ommits the offense of a g gra vate d s talking , a

fe lony of thethird de gre e , p un ish a

blea s p ro vid e d in

s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. The timing of

events is not entirely

clea r from the rec ord. In his 2002 deposition, Terry 4 testified that he returne d to the Padzur home at 8:00 p.m. Terry Crim. Depo. 38–39. In 2005, Terr y also testified that he returne d at 8:00 p.m. Terr y Civil Depo. 51. Terry ’s af fidavit, by contra st, makes no mention of an 8:00 p.m. visit to the property . It is undisput ed, howe ver, that the ac tual arrest took placeshortly before midnight.

5 d id n o t o b s e r v e M c C lis h c o m m it a n y c r im e s w h ile th e o f f ic e r s w e r e p r e s e n t. G r ove s D e po. 15. U pon r e tur ni ng t o the S he r i f f’ s O f f i c e , D e puty T e r r y r e vi e w e d the r e c or ds of p r e v io u s c a lls to th e S h e r if f’s O f f ic e a n d c o n c lu d e d - - o n th e b a s is o f h is co n v er sa ti o n w ith th e n eig h b o rs an d h is p er so n al o b se rv atio n s o f M cC li sh ’s be ha vi or- - tha the ha d pr oba bl e c a us e t o a r r e s tM c C l i s h f orthe c r i m e of 2 a g g r a v a te d s ta lk in g . A lth o u g h T e r r y d e c id e d to a r r e s t M c C lis h b e f o r e r e tu r n in g to 3 M c C lis h ’s h o m e , h e d id n o t a tte m p t to o b ta in a n a r r e s t w a r r a n t f r o m a m a g is tr a te du ri ng the si x o r s even ho urs s epar at i ng the tw o v i si t s, and h e c on ce ded t hatthere 4D uri n gh i s 2 0 0 5 d ep o s i t i o n , D ep uty T e r r y t e s t i f i e d i nth i s w ay: 5 Q: No w, wh e n you

c ameba c k at 11 :30 , did you havea wa rrant? A: No. Q: Had you

a pp lie d f or a wa rrant? A: No. Q : An d

th e r ew a s n o e x i g e n c y? A: No. Q: An d you

weren’ t in

ho t pu rs uit ? A: Th at’ s c or

re c t. Q: Did you know you were g oing onto the residenc e of Mr . McClish and Mr. Ho l mb er g? A: Yes, I

did. Terr y Civil Depo. 54–55. 6 w er e no exi gentci rc um st ance s t o j ust i fy a w arra nt l es s e nt ry i nt o M cC l i sh’ s hom e. 5 D e p u ty T e r r y a n d D e p u ty C a ld e r o n e r e tu r n e d to th e a r e a a t a p p r o x im a te ly 1 1 :3 0 p .m . th a t s a m e d a y to a r r e s t M c C lis h . T h e y w e r e a c c o m p a n ie d b y D e p u ty M ar t i nez, a K -9 hand l er , and h i s dog , M agnu m . T erry m etbri ef l y w i th t he P adzurs t o i nf or m the m of

hi s i nt e nt i on t o a r r e s tM c C l i s h be f or e he pr oc e e de d t o the M c C lis h /H o lm b e r g p r o p e r ty . V e h ic u la ra c c e s s to th e M c C lis h /H o lm b e r g h o m e is l i m i t e d by a n e l e c tr oni c ga t e pos t e d w i th “ N o T r e s pa s s i ng” s i gns . M c C l i s h a nd H ol m berg had g i ven t hei r nei gh bo r L anny B aum a “ cl i cker ” f or the gat e, w hi ch B a um w a s pe r m i t t e d t o us e i n or de rt o m a ke pe r i odi c de l i ve r i e s of f i l l di r tont o the H o l m b erg / M cC l i sh p ro p erty. A cco rd i n g t o M cC l i sh , B au m h ad ex p ress in s tru c tio n s n e v e rto g iv e th e c lic k e rto a n y o n e e ls e . O n th e n ig h t o f th e a r r e s t, B au m ei th er o p en ed th e g at e fo r th e d ep u t i es o r l o an ed th e d ev i ce t o D ep u ty T erry.Both Holmbergand McClish claimed that the slidingdoor lea ding onto the porch wa s 6 never left open. Mc Clish Depo. 98. Terr y ’s af fidavit, by

contra st, describe d this sli ding sc reen do or a s b e ing“pa

rtially op e n. ”Terr

y Af f. ¶ 1 6. Al tho ugh th ele g a lity of theof fi c e rs ’ entr

y onto the porc h was a

rgued in the district cour

t, this i ssue was not raised on appe al and, in light of our holding today, does not nee d to be addressed. It is unclear f

rom the re cord whether

McClish knew at the time that he opened the door 7 that deputies from the Sheriff’ s Offic e were standingoutside. Compare McClish Aff. ¶ 8 (stating 7 S hor t l y be f

or e m i dni ght , the de put i e s dr ove thr ough the ga t e t o the M c C l i s h/ H o lm b e r g h o m e . D e p u tie s T e r r y a n d C a ld e r o n e c lim b e d s e v e r a l s te p s le a d in g to the sc re ened-i n p orch atthe fr on tof the tra i l er . D eput y M ar t i nez, the K -9 offi ce r, hung ba c k w i th the dog. T e r r y a nd C a l de r one e nt e r e d the s c r e e ne d por c h thr ough a sl i di ng sc re en do or and p roce eded t o t he fr on tdo or of the ho m e. 6 D e puty T e r r y knoc ke d on the doort o the tr a i l e r , a nd a tthi s poi ntthe a c c ount s di ve r ge s ha rpl y . A s the di s tr i c tc our tc ha r a c t e r i z e d the de put i e s ’ ve r s i on o f M c C lis h ’s a r r e s t: D e puty T e r r y a nd D e puty C a l de r one w e ntt o the M c C l i s h a nd H o lm b e r g r e s id e n c e to e f f e c tu a te th e a r r e s t o f

M c C lis h . . . . D e p u ty T e r r y . . . s t a t e s tha the w a l ke d ont o the f r ontpor c h a nd knoc ke d on the f r ontdoor . M c C l i s h ope ne d the doora nd a s ke d w ho i tw a s , a nd D e p u ty Te r r y t o l d h i m th a ti tw a s th e Sh e r i f f’ s O f f i c e . M c Cl i s h c a me o u t o n to th e p o r c h a n d D e p u ty T e r r y th e n p la c e d h im u n d e ra r r e s t. D i st . C t . O rderat5 (em ph as i s a dd ed, ci t at i on s om i t t ed). M c C l i s h, i n c ontr a s t , s a i d tha the ha d j us tgot t e n outof the s how e rw he n he h e a r d a d o g b a r k in g f

o llo w e d b y a k n o c k a t th e d o o r . H e p u t o n a b a th r o b e , w e n t to the door , a nd ope ne d i t . M c C l i s h a ve r r e d tha tD e puty T e r r y w a s s t a ndi ng on the 7that McClish opened the door f ollowing the knoc k), with McClish Depo. 118–119 (statingthat McClish asked who wa s there a nd was told that it was the Sheriff ’s Off ice be foreopeningthe door). The McClish/Holmberghome appa rently has both a wooden door and a scre en door 8 separatingthe interior of

the home from the scre ened- in porch. SeeHolmbergDepo. 63. Aside from Holmberg ’s statement that the sc reen door betwe en the porch and theinterior wa s never left open, id., however, therec ord on appe al does not makeclea r who opened this scre en door or at what point duringthe enc ounter it was opened. This fa ct was not a rgued on appe al, nor is it of any moment given our re solution of the case . 8 por c h, di r e c t l y i n f

r ontof the ope n door , a nd tha tT e r r y the n r e a c he d i nt o the 8 ho use, grabbed h i m , and forci bl y pul l ed hi m ou ton t o t he po rc h. B ot h H ol m berg a n d M c C lis h u n a m b ig u o u s ly s ta te d th a t M c C lis h h a d b e e n s ta n d in g c o m p le te ly i nsi de the ho m e a tthe t i m e. M c C l i s h r e c ount e d tha ta f t e rD e puty T e r r y pul l e d hi m outof the tr a i l e r , the de puty pus he d hi m dow n ont o a t a bl e on the por c h a nd y a nke d hi s ha nds be hi nd hi s bac k “ qu i t e f

orci bl y. ” A cc ordi ng t o T erry , M cC l i sh re qu es t ed and w as deni ed the oppor tuni ty t o dr e s s . T e r r y s t a t e d tha tH ol m be r g’ s e xi tf r om the hom e dur i ng M cC l i sh’ s a rr es tprevent ed hi m fr om grant i ng M cC l i sh’ s r equestt o d re ss , and t hat he t ol d M cC l i sh the coun ty j ai l w ou l d p rovi de cl ot hi ng . M cC l i sh sa i d t hatT erry then spu n h i m ar ou nd so thatthe tw o m en w er e f ac e- t o-fa ce and sai d, “ R em em ber m e? ” A ft erM cC l i sh had b ee n h andcuffed and w as bei ng t aken aw ay , H ol m berg ca m e out si de the ho m e a nd w as subsequent l y a rr es t ed for r es i st i ng an offi ce rThe Hernando County J ail is privately

operated by

the Corre ctions Corporation of 9 Americ a, not by

the Her nando County

Sheriff. Terry

Aff. ¶ 18. 9 w i thoutvi ol e nc e . A ga i n, the a c c ount s di f f e r . H ol m be r g c l a i m e d tha the c a m e out o f th e h o m e as th e d ep u t i es w ere l ead i n g M cC l i sh t o th e car an d ask ed M cC l i sh w h a t h e s h o u ld d o . M c C lis h to ld h im to c a ll a n e ig h b o r , V ir g in ia K n ig h t, f o rh e lp i n f i ndi ng a l a w y e r . H ol m be r g a dde d tha the ha d tur ne d a r ound t o r e tur n t o the h o me a n d ma k e th e c a l l w h e n D e p u ty Te r r y t o l d D e p u ty Ca l d e r o n e t o a r r e s th i m. T erry an d C al d ero n e, b y co n trast , cl ai m th atH o l m b erg ru sh ed o u to f th e h o u se y e llin g a n d s c r e a m in g , a n d th a t h e a p p r o a c h e d th e m w ith c le n c h e d f is ts . D e p u ty C a l de r one c l a i m s tha the a r r e s t e d H ol m be r g f orr e s i s t i ng a n of

f i c e rw i thout v i o l en ce o n l y aft er H o l m b erg refu sed sev eral req u est s t o w al k aw ay. T he tw o m en w er e then t aken t o t he coun ty j ai l . H ol m berg sa i d t hathe w as 9 s pr a y e d w i th m a c e on tw o oc c a s i ons , r e s ul t i ng i n l a s t i ng da m a ge t o hi s e y e s , a nd tha the w a s t a unt e d a nd ba i t e d w i th a c a m c or de r . M c C l i s h r e c ount e d tha the co n tract ed b ro n ch i t i s fro m si t t i n g fo r h o u rs i n a co l d cel l w i th o u tan y cl o th es. M c C l i s h a l s o c l a i m e d, a ta de pos i t i on t a ke n s om e f oury e a r s a f

t e rthe a r r e s t , tha the st i l l had sca rs fr om i nj uri es suff er ed du ri ng the arre st . F i nal l y, M cC l i sh sa i d t hat th e h a n d c u f

f s w e r e a p p lie d to o tig h tly , d a m a g in g h is w r is ts a n d c a u s in g h im to part i al l y l ose f

un ct i on i n b ot h h ands. M cC l i sh’ s hands and w ri st s w er e e xam i ned by a doct or, bu tthe stud y w as di sc on t i nu ed because M cC l i sh “ coul d n ott ol er at e”10

th e te s ts . A t th e tim e o f

th e a r r e s t, M c C lis h w a s 7 5 y e a r s o ld . T he c ha r ge a ga i ns tM c C l i s h w a s l a t e rdi s m i s s e d. H ol m be r g e nt e r e d i nt o p retri al i n t erv en t i o n , co m p l et ed th e p ro g ram , an d th e ch arg e ag ai n sth i m w as al so di s m i s s e d. O n D e c e m b e r1 7 , 2 0 0 4 , H o lm b e r g a n d M c C lis h s u e d H e r n a n d o C o u n ty S he r i f f R i c ha r d N uge nt , D e puty S ha w n T e r r y , a nd D e puty C hr i s t ophe rC a l de r one i n t he U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rtfor the M i dd l e D i stri ctof F l ori da. T he am ended com pl ai ntcont ai ned fou r c ou nt s. In C ou ntI, M cC l i sh and H ol m berg sued S heri ff N u g e n t f o rs ta te la w f

a ls e a r r e s t a n d b a tte r y . I n C o u n t I I , M c C lis h c h a r g e d D e p u ty T e r r y , i n h i s i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i ty , wi th m a l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n , a g a i n u n d e rs t a t e l a w. C o u n t I I I c o n ta in e d M c C lis h ’s § 1 9 8 3 c la im s a g a in s t D e p u ty T e r r y in h is in d iv id u a l c a p a c ity f

o ru n r e a s o n a b le w a r r a n tle s s a r r e s t u n d e rth e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t, h a r a s s m e n t, a r r e s t w ith o u t p r o b a b le c a u s e , a n d c a u s in g h is p ro secu t i o n u p o n k n o w i n g l y fal se t est i m o n y i n th e p rep arat i o n o f th e arrest af fi davi t . F i nal l y, i n C ou ntIV , H ol m berg brou gh ta § 19 83 cl ai m agai nstD eput i es T e r r y a nd C a l de r one a l l e gi ng ha r a s s m e nt , a r r e s tw i thoutpr oba bl e c a us e , a nd k n o w in g ly u s in g f

a ls e te s tim o n y in th e p r e p a r a tio n o f th e a r r e s t a f

f id a v it. T he r e a f t e r , A ppe l l e e s m ove d f

ors um m a r y j udgm e nt , a nd on J a nua r y 20, 20 06 , the di stri ctcourtent er ed fi nal sum m ary j ud gm entfor D eput y S heri ff s11

C al derone and T erry on C ou nt s I I, II I, and IV . T he di stri ctcourtal so di sm i ss ed w i tho utprej ud i ce appel l ant s’ st at e l aw cl ai m s a gai nstS heri ff N ug enti n C ou ntI. M c C l i s h a nd H ol m be r g ha ve t i m e l y a ppe a l e d f r om the or de rof

s um m a r y j udgm e nt e n te r e d o n C o u n ts I I I a n d I V a n d th e d is m is s a l o f th e s ta te la w c la im s in C o u n t I unde r28 U . S . C . § 1367( c ) ( 3) . ( T he a ppe l l a nt s ha ve nota ppe a l e d f r om the e ntr y of f in a l s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t o n C o u n t I I - - th e s ta te la w m a lic io u s p r o s e c u tio n c la im .)

II. W e begi n w i th M cC l i sh’ s app ea l fr om the di stri ctcourt ’ s orderof sum m ary j udgm e ntf

orD e puty T e r r y on qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty gr ounds . T he purpos e of q u a lif ie d im m u n ity is “to a llo w g o v e r n m e n t o f f ic ia ls to c a r r y o u t th e ir d is c r e tio n a r y d u tie s w ith o u t th e f e a ro f p e r s o n a l lia b ility o rh a r a s s in g litig a tio n .” L ee v. F erra ro, 28 4 F . 3d 11 88 , 11 94 (11t h C i r. 20 02 ). Q ual i fi ed i m m un i ty i s a n i m m un i ty f

rom sui tra ther than a m er e def ense fr om l i abi l i ty. In order t o spare o f f ic ia ls w h o a r e e n title d to im m u n ity f r o m th e b u r d e n o f

litig a tio n , th e a v a ila b ility of qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty s houl d be e va l ua t e d e a r l y i n the pr oc e e di ngs . S a uc i e rv. K at z, 5 3 3 U . S . 1 9 4 , 2 0 0

– 0 1 (2 0 0 1 ). A n o ffi ci al seek i n g q u al i fi ed i m m u n i ty m u st i ni t i a l l y e s t a bl i s h tha the w a s a c t i ng w i thi n hi s di s c r e t i ona r y a uthor i ty . I f the o f f ic ia l w a s a c tin g w ith in th e s c o p e o f h is d is c r e tio n a r y a u th o r ity , th e b u r d e n s h if ts12

to th e p la in tif

f . F i r s t , the pl a i nt i f

f m us te s t a bl i s h tha tthe de f e nda nt ’ s c onduc tha s vi ol a t e d a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t. I d . a t 2 0 1 . I n e v a lu a tin g th e c la im e d v io la tio n , th e c o u r t is ob l i ged t o revi ew the fa ct s i n t he l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o t he pl ai nt i ff . Id. M oreover, th e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l i ty o f

th e a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n i s e v a l u a t e d u s i n g p r e s e n t - d a y l a w. T h e n , th e p la in tif

f m u s t s h o w th a t th e v io la tio n w a s “c le a r ly e s ta b lis h e d .” I d . W e have hel d t hatdeci si on s of the U ni t ed S t at es S up re m e C ou rt , the U ni t ed S t at es C our tof A ppe a l s f

orthe E l e ve nth C i r c ui t , a nd the hi ghe s tc our tof the pe r t i ne nt st at e (h ere, th e S u p rem e C o u rto f F l o ri d a) can cl earl y est ab l i sh th e l aw . S ee M arsh v. B ut l erC ou nt y, 26 8 F . 3d 10 14 , 10 32 n. 10 (11t h C i r. 20 01 ) ( en banc). T he l aw cl ea rl y e st abl i shi ng the vi ol at i on al so m ustbe “ pre- exi st i ng ” - - thati s, i n eff ec tat the t i m e of

the a l l e ge d vi ol a t i on. T hi s r e qui r e m e nte ns ur e s tha tof f i c e r s w i l l notbe l i a bl e f orda m a ge s unl e s s the y ha d “ f a i rw a r ni ng” tha tthe i rc onduc tvi ol a t e d the l aw . H op e v. P el ze r, 53 6 U . S . 73 0, 74 1 (20 02 ). M c C lis h d o e s n o t d is p u te th a t D e p u ty T e r r y w a s a c tin g w ith in h is di s c r e t i ona r y a uthor i ty a tthe t i m e of the a r r e s t , s o M c C l i s h bor e the bur de n of s h o w in g th a t T e r r y v io la te d a c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d s ta tu to r y o rc o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t to ove r c om e the qua l i f

i e d i m m uni ty de f

e ns e . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notde t e r m i ne the const i tut i on al i ty of D eput y T erry ’ s a ct i on s i n arr es t i ng M cC l i sh. Inst ea d, the court13

a voi de d a ns w e r i ng w he the rthe a r r e s tvi ol a t e d the F our th A m e ndm e ntby a s s um i ng tha ti tdi d. T he c our tthe n di s pos e d of the c a s e on the gr ound tha tthe l a w w a s not c l e a r l y e s t a bl i s he d. S e e D i s t . C t . O r de ra t12 ( “ E ve n i f D e puty T e r r y vi ol a t e d a c ons t i tut i ona l r i ghtby r e a c hi ng a c r os s the door w a y t o a r r e s tM c C l i s h, the s t a t e of the l aw as t o d oo rw ay arre st s w as no t‘ cl ea rl y e st abl i shed’ atthe t i m e D eput y T erry m ade the arre st . ”) . H ow ever , as the S up re m e C ou rthas m ade abu nd ant l y c l ea r, qu al i fi ed i m m u n i ty d et erm i n at i o n s m ay n o tb e d i sp o sed o f i n th i s arg u en d o fo rm , b y fi rst si m pl y a ss um i ng the vi ol at i on and t hen p roce edi ng t o add re ss w hether the l aw w as c l e a r l y e s t a bl i s he d a tthe t i m e of the i nf r a c t i on. S a uc i e r , 533 U . S . a t201. A l though both qua l i f

i e d i m m uni ty i nqui r i e s a r e l ogi c a l l y r e l a t e d, the tw o i nqui r i e s m us tbe c onduc t e d i n the pr ope ror de r . W e m a y nota s s um e a n a ns w e rt o the f i r s tque s t i on i n o rdert o avo i d d i ff

i cul tconst i tut i on al i ss ues. T he S up re m e C ou rthas e xp l ai ned th e req u i rem en ti n th ese cl ear t erm s: In the course of det er m i ni ng w hether a const i tut i on al ri gh tw as vi ol at ed on the prem i se s a l l eged, a c ou rtm i gh tfi nd i tnece ss ary t o set f or th pr i nc i pl e s w hi c h w i l l be c om e the ba s i s f ora hol di ng tha ta r i ght i s c l e a r l y e s t a bl i s he d. T hi s i s the pr oc e s s f orthe l a w ’ s e l a bor a t i on f r o m c a s e to c a s e , a n d it is o n e r e a s o n f o ro u rin s is tin g u p o n tu r n in g to th e ex i st en ce o r n o n ex i st en ce o f a co n st i tu t i o n al ri g h tas th e fi rst i nq ui ry . T he l aw m i gh tbe depri ved o f thi s e xp l anat i on w er e a court s im p ly to s k ip a h e a d to th e q u e s tio n w h e th e rth e la w c le a r ly e s t a bl i s he d tha tthe of

f i c e r ’ s c onduc tw a s unl a w f ul i n the ci rc um st ance s of the ca se .14

I d. ; s e e a l s o B unt i ng v. M e l l e n, 541 U . S . 1019, 1022 ( 2004) ( S c a l i a , J . , di s s e nt i ng f r om de ni a l of

c e r t i or a r i ) ( “ T hi s C our tha s e s t a bl i s he d a m a nda t or y or de rof pr i or i ty f orr e s ol ut i on of

the tw o s t a nda r d i s s ue s tha ta r i s e i n da m a ge s s ui t s br ought a g a i n s tg o v e r n me n to f

f i c e r s . . . . ” ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d ) ) ; Si e g e r tv . G i l l e y , 5 0 0 U . S. 226, 232 ( 1991) ( hol di ng tha tthe a ppe l l a t e c our ts houl d notha ve a s s um e d, w i thout d eci d i n g , th e co n st i tu t i o n al q u est i o n an d ch aract eri zi n g th i s q u est i o n as a

“ ne c e s s a r y c onc om i t a nt ” t o the s e c ond i nqui ry ) ; S t a nl e y v. C i ty of D a l t on, 219 F .3 d 1 2 8 0 , 1 2 8 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( q u o tin g S ie g e r t’s “n e c e s s a r y c o n c o m ita n t” la n g u a g e ) ; C r o s b y v . P a u lk , 1 8 7 F .3 d 1 3 3 9 , 1 3 4 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( c itin g S ie g e r t) . W e b eg i n , th erefo re, as w e m u st , w i th th e fi rstq u al i fi ed i m m u n i ty i n q u i ry: w he the rD e puty T e r r y vi ol a t e d M c C l i s h’ s F our th A m e ndm e ntr i ght s dur i ng the a r r e s t. A . M c C l i s h c l a i m s tha tD e puty T e r r y vi ol a t e d the F our th A m e ndm e ntby e nt e r i ng M c C l i s h’ s hom e w i thouta w a r r a ntt o a r r e s thi m . T he A m e ndm e nt p r o v id e s : T h e ri g h to f th e p eo p l e t o b e secu re i n th ei r p erso n s, h o u ses, p ap ers, a nd e f f e c t s , a ga i ns tunr e a s ona bl e s e a r c he s a nd s e i z ur e s , s ha l l notbe vi ol at ed, and n o W arra nt s s hal l i ss ue, bu tup on prob abl e c ause , supp ort ed by O ath o r a ff i rm at i on , and p ar t i cul ar l y des cr i bi ng the pl ac e t o be s e a r c he d, a nd the pe r s ons orthi ngs t o be s e i z e d.15

A n a r r e s ti s qui nt e s s e nt i a l l y a s e i z ur e of the pe r s on, a nd the r e f

or e s ubj e c tt o the F our th A m e ndm e nt ’ s r e a s ona bl e ne s s r e qui r e m e nt . C a l i f or ni a v. H oda r i D . , 499 U . S . 62 1, 62 4 (19 91 ). Iti s by now cl ea r thatan arre stcond uct ed i n a pu bl i c pl ac e m ustbe supp ort ed by prob abl e c ause , bu ti tdo es no tre qu i re a w arra nt . U ni t ed S t at es v. W at son, 42 3 U . S . 41 1, 41 7 & n. 6 (19 76 ). A n arr es ti n t he ho m e, ho w ever , is p la in ly s u b

je c t to th e w a r r a n t r e q u ir e m e n t; p r o b a b le c a u s e a lo n e is in s u f f ic ie n t. P a y t on v. N e w Y or k, 445 U . S . 573, 589–90 ( 1980) . M c C l i s h doe s notc ont e s ton appeal thatD eput y T erry had p robabl e c ause t o arr es thi m . Inst ea d, he ar gu es that the a r r e s tw a s unc ons t i tut i ona l be c a us e T e rr y w a s nota r m e d w i th a n a r r e s tw a r r a nt w h e n T e r r y p u lle d M c C lis h f r o m h is h o m e . T he w arra ntre qu i re m entw as fi rs tappl i ed t o cov eran arre sti nsi de a suspec t ’ s hom e i n P ay t on , w here the C ou rtstruck do w n a N ew Y ork st atut e that p e r m itte d p o lic e to e n te ra p r iv a te r e s id e n c e w ith o u t a w a r r a n t, u s in g f o r c e if nece ss ary, t o m ake a fe l on y a rr es t . In the fi rs tof tw o con sol i dat ed ca se s a dd re ss ed in P a y to n , N e w Y o r k C ity d e te c tiv e s s o u g h t to a r r e s t T h e o d o r e P a y to n in c onne c t i on w i th the m ur de rof a ga s s t a t i on m a na ge rtw o da y s e a r l i e r . I d. a t576–77 & n. 5. T he pol i c e w e ntt o P a y t on’ s a pa r t m e nta nd, a f t e rthe i rknoc ks w e nt una ns w e r e d, us e d c r ow ba r s t o br e a k ope n the door . A l though P a y t on w a s not pres ent , the po l i ce foun d and se i ze d from w i thi n t he ho m e a shel l ca si ng thatw as16

la te rin tr o d u c e d a t P a y to n ’s m u r d e rtr ia l. I d . I n th e s e c o n d c a s e , N e w Y o r k C ity po l i ce offi ce rs w entt o t he apartm entof O bi e R i dd i ck t o arr es thi m for a rm ed r obbe r y . T he pol i c e knoc ke d a tthe door , a nd R i ddi c k’ s y oung s on a ns w e r e d. T hrou gh the op en do or, po l i ce peer ed i nt o t he ho use a nd sa w R i dd i ck si t t i ng i n b ed c o v e r e d b y a s h e e t. T h e p o lic e e n te r e d R id d ic k ’s a p a r tm e n t a n d a r r e s te d h im , a g a in w i thouta w a r r a nt . I d. a t578. I n P a y to n , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t u n a m b ig u o u s ly h e ld th a t th e F o u r th A m endm ent“ proh i bi t s the po l i ce fr om m aki ng a w arra nt l es s a nd no ncon se nsual e ntr y i nt o a s us pe c t ’ s hom e i n or de rt o m a ke a r out i ne f e l ony a r r e s t . ” I d. a t576. B ecau se th e p o l i ce seek i n g t o arrestP ayt o n an d R i d d i ck h ad en t ered th e su sp ect s’ ho m es w i tho uta w arra nt , the entri es w er e f ou nd t o b e unreas on abl e, and, there fore , u n l a w f u l . A s th e Co u r te x p l a i n e d , a n a r r e s tw a r r a n tw a s r e q u i r e d t o e n t e rth e h o me beca use the evi dent i ary i nfer ence s use d t o j ust i fy thi s ki nd of go vernm ent al i nt rusi on shou l d b e dra w n b y a “ neut ra l and d et ac hed m agi stra t e, ” notan offi ce r

“ e nga ge d i n the of

t e n c om pe t i t i ve e nt e rpr i s e of f e r r e t i ng outc r i m e . ” I d. a t586 n. 24 ( q u o tin g J o h n s o n v . U n ite d S ta te s , 4 4 5 U .S . 1 0 , 1 3

– 1 4 ( 1 9 4 8 ) ) . In re ac hi ng thi s hol di ng , the C ou rtgave speci al att ent i on t o t he re spec t tr a di t i ona l l y a c c or de d t o the s a nc t i ty of the hom e , a n i nt e r e s t“ e m be dde d i n our tr a di t i ons s i nc e the or i gi ns of the R e publ i c . ” I d. a t601; s e e a l s o G e or gi a v.Th is s tate me nt allu de s totheof t- qu ote d e xce rp t f

ro m a 17 63 sp e e c h b y

Willi am Pitt: 10 T h ep o o r e s tm anm ay

i nh i s c o tt a g eb i d

d e f i an c et o a l lth ef

o rc e s o f th eC ro wn . It may be frail; its roof may

shake; the w ind may

blow through it; the storm may enter ; the rain may

enter ; but the King of

Eng land ca

nnot enter - - all his forc e da re s n ot c ro ss t

hethre sh old

of theruine d tene me nt! Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 307 (1958). 17 R a n d o lp h , 1 2 6 S . C t. 1 5 1 5 , 1 5 2 3

– 2 4 ( 2 0 0 6 ) : S i nce w e hol d t o t he ce nturi es -ol d p ri nci pl e of r es pectfor the pri vacy of the ho m e, i ti s bey on d d i sput e thatthe ho m e i s e nt i t l ed t o speci al prot ec t i on as the ce nt erof the pri vat e l i ves of our peop l e. W e have, a f t e ra l l , l i ve d ourw hol e na t i ona l hi s t or y w i th a n unde r s t a ndi ng of the a nc i e nta da ge tha ta m a n’ s hom e i s hi s c a s t l e t o the poi nttha tthe poor e s tm a n m a y i n hi s c ot t a ge bi d de f i a nc e t o a l l the f

or c e s of the C r ow n. 10 (ci t at i o n s an d q u o t at i o n s o m i t t ed ). T h e p ro b l em w i th a w arran t l ess en try t o arrest w a s f o u n d n o t o n ly in th e g o v e r n m e n ta l in tru s io n o n p e r s o n a l f r e e d o m n e c e s s a r ily i nvol ve d i n a ny a r r e s t , buta l s o be c a us e i ti nvol ve d a n i ntrus i on i nt o the s a nc t i ty of the hom e . P a y t on, 445 U . S . a t587–89; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R e e d, 572 F . 2d 41 2, 42 3 (2d C i r. 19 78 ) ( appl yi ng thi s pri nci pl e, i n l angu age quo t ed w i th app roval i n P a y t on, t o a w om a n a r r e s t e d be hi nd the thr e s hol d of he ra pa r t m e nta f

t e rope ni ng her doo r i n res po nse t o a po l i ce kn ock). T h e C o u rtth u s rej ect ed th e i d ea th atan en try t o arrestw as so m eh o w l ess in tru s iv e th a n a n e n tr y to s e a r c h , r e a s o n in g th a t b o th in tru s io n s v io la te th e s a n c tity o f th e h o m e. In st ead , “ th e cri t i cal p o i n ti s th atan y d i fferen ces i n th e i n tru si v en essAs the Court explained in Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), 11 Th eF ourt h Ame ndme nt’ s p ro te c tio n o f t heho meha s n e ver b e e n ti e d to measurement of the quality or quantity

of information obtained. . . . [F]or example, we [have] made cle ar that any phy sical invasion of the struc ture of the home, “by

even a fra ction of an inc h,” wa s too much, and thereis certainly no exception to the warrant re quirement for the offic er who bare ly

cracks open the front door a

nd sees nothingbut the nonintimate rugon the vestibule floor. I n the ho me , o ur

c a se s sh ow , all d e tails areintimatede tails , b e c a us ethee ntireare a

is held safefrom pry

ing g overnment eyes. I d. at 37 (e mphases adde d, citations and quotations omitted). 18 of e ntr i e s t o s e a r c h a nd e ntr i e s t o a r r e s ta r e m e r e l y one s of de gr e e r a the rtha n ki nd. T he tw o i nt rusi on s s hare thi s f un dam ent al char ac t er i st i c: the breac h o f the entra nce t o an i n d i v i d u al ’ s h o m e. ” P ayt o n , 4 4 5 U . S . at5 8 9 (em p h ases ad d ed ); see al so M i nne s ot a v. O l s on, 495 U . S . 91, 95 ( 1990) ( “ T he purpos e of the [ P a y t on] de c i s i on w a s nott o pr ot e c tthe pe r s on of the s us pe c tbutt o pr ot e c thi s hom e f r om entry . . . . ”) . 11 T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t p r o c e e d e d to d e f in e th e s c o p e o f

th e F o u r th A m en d m en t ’ s p ro t ect i o n o f th e h o m e i n v ery ex p l i ci tt erm s: T h e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t p r o te c ts th e in d iv id u a l’s p r iv a c y in a v a r ie ty of se t t i ng s. In no ne i s the zone of pri vacy m ore c l ea rl y def i ned t han w hen b ou nd ed by the un am bi gu ou s physi ca l di m ensi on s of a n in d iv id u a l’s h o m e - - a z o n e th a t f in d s its r o o ts in c le a ra n d s p e c if ic c o n s titu tio n a l te r m s : “T h e r ig h t o f th e p e o p le to b e s e c u r e in th e ir. . . h o u s e s . . . s h a ll n o t b e v io la te d .” T h a t la n g u a g e u n e q u iv o c a lly e s ta b lis h e s th e p r o p o s itio n th a t “[ a t] th e v e r y c o r e [ o f th e F o u r th A me n d me n t ] s t a n d s th e r i g h to f a ma n t o r e tr e a ti n t o h i s o w n h o me a n d th e r e b e f

r e e f r o m u n r e a s o n a b le g o v e r n m e n ta l in tru s io n .” S ilv e r m a n v . U n ite d S ta te s , 3 6 5 U .S . 5 0 5 , 5 1 1 . I n te r m s th a t a p p ly19

e q u a lly to s e iz u r e s o f

p r o p e r ty a n d to s e iz u r e s o f p e r s o n s , th e F o u r th A m e ndm e ntha s dr a w n a f i r m l i ne a tthe e ntr a nc e t o the hous e . A bs e nt exi gentci rc um st ance s, thatthres ho l d m ay no tre as on abl y be c ross ed w ith o u t a w a r r a n t. P ay t on , 44 5 U . S . at58 9– 90 (e m ph as es added, al t er at i on s i n o ri gi nal ). W a r r a nt l e s s e ntr y i nt o the hom e i s the r e f or e unr e a s ona bl e , s ubj e c tonl y t o a f e w “ j e a l ous l y a nd c a r e f

ul l y dr a w n” e xc e pt i ons . R a ndol ph, 126 S . C t . a t1520 ( quot i ng J one s v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 357 U . S . 493, 499 ( 1958) ) . C ons e ntpr ovi de s one e xc e pt i on t o the w a r r a ntr e qui r e m e nt . S e e I l l i noi s v. R odr i gue z , 497 U . S . 177, 181 ( 1 9 9 0 ) ; U n ite d S ta te s v . E d m o n d s o n , 7 9 1 F .2 d 1 5 1 2 , 1 5 1 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) . A s e c o n d e x c e p tio n to th e w a r r a n t r e q u ir e m e n t is m a d e f o r“e x ig e n t c ir c u m s ta n c e s ,” o r si tu at i o n s i n w h i ch “ th e i n ev i t ab l e d el ay i n ci d en tt o o b t ai n i n g a w arran tm u st gi ve w a y t o a n ur ge ntne e d f ori m m e di a t e a c t i on. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ur gos , 720 F .2 d 1 5 2 0 , 1 5 2 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ) . T h u s , f o re x a m p le , th e c o u r ts h a v e u p h e ld e x ig e n t c ir c u m s ta n c e s e n tr ie s to b r e a k u p a v io le n t f ig h t, B r ig h a m C ity v . S tu a r t, 12 6 S . C t . 19 43 , 19 49 (200 6), t o p re ventthe destruct i on of evi dence, U ni t ed S t at es v. M i ke l l , 102 F . 3d 470, 476 ( 11th C i r . 1996) , t o putouta f i r e i n a bur ni ng b u ild in g , M ic h ig a n v . T y le r , 4 3 6 U .S . 4 9 9 , 5 0 9 ( 1 9 7 8 ) , to p u r s u e a f le e in g s u s p e c t, U n ite d S ta te s v . S a n ta n a , 4 2 7 U .S . 3 8 , 4 2

– 4 3 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , to r e s c u e a k id n a p p e d in f a n t, U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L a boy , 909 F . 2d 581, 586 ( 1s tC i r . 1990) , a nd t o a t t e nd t o a st abbi ng vi ct i m , U ni t ed S t at es v. G i l l enw at er s, 89 0 F . 2d 67 9, 68 2 (4t h C i r. 19 89 ).20

U n d er ei th er co n sen to r ex i g en tci rcu m st an ces, an o ffi cer w h o co n d u ct s a w a r r a n tle s s s e a r c h o rs e iz u r e in s id e th e h o m e b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f p r o v in g th a t h is cond uctw as j ust i fi ed. S ee S am m on s v. T ay l or, 96 7 F . 2d 15 33 , 15 43 (11t h C i r. 19 92 ). M c C l i s h’ s a r r e s ti nvol ve d ne i the rc ons e ntnore xi ge ntc i r c um s t a nc e s . T he re cord do es no tre veal thatM cC l i sh consent ed, and w e have hel d t hat“ w hat ever r e le v a n c e th e im p lie d c o n s e n t d o c tr in e m a y h a v e in o th e rc o n te x ts , it is i napp ropri at e t o sanct i on entry i nt o t he ho m e bas ed up on i nferre d con se nt . ” U ni t ed S t a t e s v. G onz a l e z , 71 F . 3d 819, 830 ( 11th C i r . 1996) ( e m pha s i s a dde d, a l t e r a t i on an d q u o t at i o n m ark s o m i t t ed ); cf. E d m o n d so n , 7 9 1 F . 2 d at1 5 1 5 . T h i s i s n o tt o say, o f c o u r s e , th a t a s u s p e c t m a y n o t s u r r e n d e rto th e p o lic e - - “th e r e is n o th in g in P ay t on thatproh i bi t s a pers on fr om surr enderi ng t o p ol i ce athi s doo rw ay . ” U ni t ed S t at es v . B erk o w i t z, 9 2 7 F . 2 d 1 3 7 6 , 1 3 8 6 (7 th C i r. 1 9 9 1 ). T h e p ro b l em i n th i s case is th a t M c C lis h d id n o t s u r r e n d e rto th e p o lic e , n o rd id h e h a v e th e o p p o r tu n ity to do so. R ather, vi ew i ng the evi dence i n t he l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o M cC l i sh, he w as p u lle d f r o m w ith in h is h o m e , w ith o u t w a r n in g , a s s o o n a s th e d o o rw a s o p e n e d . N e ith e rw e r e e x ig e n t c ir c u m s ta n c e s p r e s e n t, a s c o n c e d e d a n d a m p ly de m ons tr a t e d by the f

a c ttha tm a ny hour s pa s s e d be tw e e n the i ni t i a l c ont a c ta nd the arre st . Inst ea d, thi s c as e pre se nt s a di ff er entqu es t i on : w hether D eput y T erry21

vi ol at ed M cC l i sh’ s F ou rth A m endm entri gh t s by r ea chi ng throu gh M cC l i sh’ s open d o o r w a y to e f

f e c t th e a r r e s t w h e n M c C lis h w a s s ta n d in g n e a rth e d o o r w a y b u t f u lly w ith in th e c o n f

in e s o f h is h o m e . F orpurpos e s of

thi s a na l y s i s , w e a r e obl i ge d t o r e vi e w the f a c t s i n the l i ght m o s t f a v o r a b le to M c C lis h , a n d th e r e f o r e c r e d it h is c la im th a t h e s to o d f ir m ly wi th i n h i s h o m e b u twi th i n r e a c h o f th e o p e n d o o r wa y a tth e t i m e o f th e a r r e s t . As M c C lis h e x p la in e d in h is a f f id a v it: [S ] ho rt l y bef

ore m i dn i gh tI hea rd a l ou d k no ck on the do or. I opened the door . D e puty T e r r y a nd D e puty C a l de r on w e r e on the por c h. D e p u ty Te r r y g r a b b e d my a r m, p u l l e d me o u to n th e p o r c h , th r e w me d o w n o v e ra ta b le a n d h a n d c u f f e d m e . P r io rto b e in g p u lle d o u t o n to th e p o r c h , I w a s to ta lly in s id e m y h o u s e . M c C l i s h A f

f . ¶ 8 ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . H ol m be r g, w ho w a s s t a ndi ng i n the l i vi ng r oom of the tr a i l e r , t e s t i f

i e d tha the s a w “ O f

f i c e rT e r r y y a nk[ ] M r . M c C l i s h f r om th e f r o n t d o o r .” H o lm b e r g D e p o . 6 2 . H o lm b e r g s p e c if ic a lly s a id th a t, im m e d ia te ly pr i ort o the a r r e s t , M c C l i s h w a s s t a ndi ng “ i ns i de the doorof the hous e , the f

r ont d o o ro f th e h o u s e .” W h e n a s k e d w h e th e r“b o th f e e t [ w e r e ] in s id e th e h o u s e ,” H ol m be r g r e s ponde d, “ Y e s . ” I d. I n P a y t on, the S upr e m e C our tdr e w a “ f i r m l i ne ” a tthe thr e s hol d of the ho m e, expl i ci t l y obser vi ng thatthi s “ thres ho l d m ay no tre as on abl y be c ross ed w i tho uta w arra nt . ” P ay t on , 44 5 U . S . at59 0. T he C ou rtcoul d n othave m oreApplication of this rule doe s not, as the spec ial concur renc e sug g ests, amount to a 12 return to some outmoded, pre-Katz Fourth Amendme nt analysis based on property law and tre sp a ss. Physic a l bo un da ri e s stillhavere le va

nc eto F ourt

h Ame ndme nt a

nalysis , a s th eSup reme Court has repe atedly

said. See Soldal v. Cook County , 506 U.S. 56, 64 (1992) (rejec ting the proposition that “the Four th Amendment is only

marg inally

concerned w ith property

rights”); Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 183 (1984) (“Thecommon law may guide consideration of what are as are prote cted by the Four th Amendment by

definingare as whose inva sion by others is wrong ful.”); Raka s v. I llinois , 439 U.S. 128, 143 n.12 (1978) (“ [B]y focusingon leg itimate expectations of privac y in Fourth Amendment jurisprudenc e, the Court has not altog ether abandone d use of property concepts in determining thepresence or absenc e of the privac y interests protec ted by

that Amendment.”) ; Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 180 (1969) ( “Nor

do we be lieve that Katz . . . was intended to withdraw a ny of the prote ction which theAm e ndme nt e xten ds to t heho me. . . . ” ). Th eF ourt h Ame ndme nt f

ocus e s o n whe ther s oc ie ty is prepared to re cognize an expectation of privac y as re asonable . Be causeproper ty law helps defineour social e xpectations, itshould not come as a sur prise that property

law boundaries may coincide w ith those boundaries de limit ing physical spac es that society is prepared to re spect. See Ge org ia v. Rand olp h, 12 6 S. Ct. 15 15 , 1 52 1 ( 20 06 ) (re ferringto “ thegre at si gnif ic anc eg iven to widely share d social expectations, which a re naturally

enough influence d by

the law of proper ty”); Raka s, 439 U.S. at 143 n.12. 22 cl earl y d efi n ed th e b read th o f th e F o u rth A m en d m en t ’ s p ro t ect i o n ag ai n st w arra nt l es s i n-ho m e a rr es t s - - i tcr ea t ed a f i rm l i ne del i m i t i ng a z on e of pri vacy defi ned b y “ the un am bi gu ou s physi ca l di m ensi on s of a n i nd i vi du al ’ s hom e. ” I d. at 58 9. A l tho ug h D eput y T erry m ay have on l y bri ef l y i nt ruded i nt o t he ho m e, M c C l i s h’ s l oc a t i on a tthe t i m e of the a r r e s t- - f

i r m l y s t a ndi ng w i thi n hi s l i vi ng room , com pl et el y behi nd the thres ho l d -- m ea ns thatD eput y T erry cr osse d P a y to n ’s f

ir m lin e . T h e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t, a s in te rp r e te d b y P a y to n a n d its p r o g e n y , d o e s n o t p e r m it a n o f f ic e rto c r o s s th is c o n s titu tio n a l lin e a n d f o r c ib ly r e m o v e a c itiz e n f

r o m h is h o m e a b s e n t a n e x ig e n c y o rc o n s e n t. 12 W h ile th e p la in la n g u a g e o f th e P a y to n d e c is io n its e lf v ir tu a lly c o m p e ls th is23

c onc l us i on, the S upr e m e C our tha s r e - i nke d P a y t on’ s f i r m l i ne on num e r ous subsequentocca si on s. S ee , e. g. , K i rk v. L ou i si ana, 53 6 U . S . 63 5, 63 6 (20 02 ) ( per c ur i a m ) ( “ [ T ] he ‘ f

i r m l i ne a tthe e ntr a nc e t o the hous e . . . m a y notr e a s ona bl y be c r os s e d w i thouta w a r r a nt . ’ ” ( quot i ng P a y t on, 445 U . S . a t590) ) ; N e w Y or k v. H a r r is , 4 9 5 U .S . 1 4 , 1 8 ( 1 9 9 0 ) ( “P a y to n n e v e r th e le s s d r e w a lin e a t th e e n tr a n c e to th e h o me . Th i s s p e c i a l s o l i c i tu d e w a s n e c e s s a r y b e c a u s e p h y s i c a l e n tr y o f th e h o me is th e c h ie f

e v il a g a in s t w h ic h th e w o r d in g o f th e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t is d ir e c te d .” ( quot a t i on m a r ks om i t t e d) ) ; S t e a ga l d v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 451 U . S . 204, 212 ( 1981) (“ [T ] he F ou rth A m endm enthas dra w n a fi rm l i ne atthe entra nce t o t he ho use. A bsentexi gentci rc um st ance s, thatthres ho l d m ay no tre as on abl y be c ross ed w ith o u t a w a r r a n t.” ( q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itte d ) ) . A nd w e r e the s e r e i t e r a t i ons of P a y t on’ s “ f

i r m l i ne ” l a ngua ge i ns uf f i c i e nt , the C our tha s s a i d tha tP a y t on s e tf or th a br i ght - l i ne rul e . A s J us t i c e S c a l i a , w r i t i ng f or the m a j or i ty i n K y l l o v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 533 U . S . 27 ( 2001) , obs e r ve d: W e ha ve s a i d tha tthe F our th A m e ndm e ntdr a w s a “ f i r m l i ne a tthe e ntr a nc e t o the hous e , ” P a y t on, 445 U . S . a t590. T ha tl i ne , w e thi nk, m u s t b e n o t o n ly f

ir m , b u t a ls o b r ig h t . . . .” Id. at40 (e m ph as i s a dd ed); se e a l so i d. (“ [W ] e [ have] m ade c l ea r thatany physi ca l i nva s i on of

the s truc tur e of

the hom e , ‘ by e ve n a f

r a c t i on of

a n i nc h’ [ i s ] t oo m uc h. ” ( e m pha s e s a dde d) ( quot i ng S i l ve r m a n v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 365 U . S . 505, 51124

( 1 9 6 1 ) ) ) . I n s h o r t, w h ile th e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t’s r e a s o n a b le n e s s ju r is p ru d e n c e is oft en i ncon si st entw i th t he pron ou ncem entof bri gh t -l i ne rul es , O hi o v . R ob i net t e, 51 9 U . S . 33 , 39 (199 6), w e have l i t t l e dou btthatP ay t on cr ea t ed on e. O urc a s e s ha ve s i m i l a r l y e m pha s i z e d P a y t on’ s “ f i r m l i ne ” a nd “ thr e s hol d” l angu age. In K ni gh tv. Ja cobson , 30 0 F . 3d 12 72 (11t h C i r. 20 02 ), for e xam pl e, an offi ce r a sked the suspec tt o st ep ou t si de hi s apartm entand t hen arre st ed hi m . In h o ld in g th at th e a rr es t d id n o t v io late th e F o u rth A m en d m en t, w e a p p li ed P ay to n ’s f i r m l i ne a ppr oa c h i n l i t e r a l a nd phy s i c a l t e r m s , nota s s om e l i t e r a r y or m e t a phor i c a l de vi c e . W r i t i ng f orthe pa ne l , J udge C a r ne s obs e r ve d: T he rul e of

P a y t on i s tha tthe r e i s “ a f i r m l i ne a tthe e ntr a nc e t o the hous e , ” a nd a bs e nte xi ge ntc i r c um s t a nc e s “ tha tthr e s hol d m a y not re as on abl y be c ross ed w i tho uta w arra nt . ” O ff i ce r J ac ob son n ever c r os s e d tha tthr e s hol d orw e ntove rthe l i ne a tthe e ntr a nc e t o the hous e . . . . P a y t on ke e ps the of f i c e r ’ s body out s i de the thr e s hol d, not hi s voi c e . I tdoe s notpr e ve nta l a w e nf or c e m e ntof

f i c e rf r om t e l l i ng a s u s p e c t to s te p o u ts id e h is h o m e a n d th e n a r r e s tin g h im w ith o u t a w a r r a nt . I n tha ts i tua t i on, the of f i c e rne ve rc r os s e s “ the f i r m l i ne a tthe e n tr a n c e to th e h o u s e ” w h ic h is w h e r e P a y to n d r e w th e lin e . I d. a t1277 ( c i t a t i on om i t t e d) ; s e e a l s o B a s hi rv. R oc kda l e C ounty , 445 F . 3d 1323, 13 27 –2 8 (11 th C i r. 20 06 ) ( qu ot i ng P ay t on ’ s “ fi rm l i ne” a nd “ thres ho l d” l angu age) U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S a nt a , 236 F . 3d 662, 675 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( s a m e ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P a r r , 716 F . 2d 796, 814 ( 11th C i r . 1983) ( s a m e ) . I nde e d, w e do nots e e how the l a ngua ge of

P a y t on i t s e l f

- - w hi c h de f

i ne s the “ z one of

pr i va c y ” i n c onc r e t e a nd25

ph ys i ca l t er m s “ bo un ded b y the un am bi gu ou s physi ca l di m ensi on s of a n i ndi vi dua l ’ s hom e ” a nd a t t a c hi ng “ f i r m [ l y ] ” “ a tthe e ntr a nc e t o the hous e , ” 445 U . S . a t589–90 - - c a n be r e a d j us ta s s om e r he t or i c a l orl i ngui s t i c f l our i s h. A pp el l ee s s ug gest , ho w ever , thatthe arre stw as no nethel es s j ust i fi ed un der U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S a nt a na , 427 U . S . 38 ( 1976) , a nd tha tS a nt a na , notP a y t on, c o n tr o ls . A lth o u g h th e is s u e is f a ir ly d e b a ta b le , w e r e m a in u n p e r s u a d e d . T o b e g in w ith , S a n ta n a , d e c id e d f o u ry e a r s b e f

o r e P a y to n , is m o s t o f

te n c ite d a s a h o t p u r s u it c a s e . S e e , e . g. , B r i gha m C i ty v. S tua r t , 126 S . C t . 1943, 1947 ( 2006) ; W e l s h v. W i s c ons i n, 466 U . S . 740, 750 ( 1984) ; S t e a ga l d, 451 U . S . a t221; B a s hi r , 445 F . 3d at13 29 –3 0; U ni t ed S t at es v. R am os, 93 3 F . 2d 96 8, 97 2 (11 th C i r. 19 91 ) ( per curi am ); U ni t ed S t at es v. S att er fi el d, 74 3 F . 2d 82 7, 84 3 (11 th C i r. 19 84 ). B utse e I l l i noi s v. M c A r thur , 531 U . S . 326, 335 ( 2001) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G odda r d, 312 F .3 d 1 3 6 0 , 1 3 6 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . I n S a nt a na , the P hi l a de l phi a pol i c e s oughtt o a r r e s t“ M om ” S a nt a na f o l l o wi n g a n u n d e r c o v e rn a r c o t i c s p u r c h a s e c o n d u c t e d a tS a n t a n a ’ s r e s i d e n c e . As the pol i c e dr ove up t o the hous e , “ [ t ] he y s a w S a nt a na s t a ndi ng i n the door w a y of th e h o u s e w ith a b r o w n p a p e rb a g in h e rh a n d .” S a n ta n a , 4 2 7 U .S . a t 4 0 ( f o o tn o te om i t t e d) . T he C our tc ha r a c t e r i z e d S a nt a na ’ s pos i t i on a s “ s t a ndi ng di r e c t l y i n the d o o r w a y - - o n e s te p f

o r w a r d w o u ld h a v e p u t h e ro u ts id e , o n e s te p b a c k w a r d w o u ld26

h a v e p u t h e rin th e v e s tib u le o f h e rr e s id e n c e .” I d . a t 4 0 n .1 . T h e p o lic e d r o v e to w i thi n 15 f

e e tof w he r e S a nt a na w a s s t a ndi ng a nd gotoutof the i rva n, s hout i ng

“ po l i ce . ” A s the offi ce rs approached t he do or, S ant ana r etre at ed i nt o t he ho use. T h e o f f ic e r s c h a s e d h e rth r o u g h th e o p e n d o o r , c a u s in g p a c k a g e s o f h e r o in to s p ill outof the pa pe rba g s he ha d be e n hol di ng w he n the y c a ughta nd a r r e s t e d he ri n the ve s t i bul e . I d. a t40. S he w a s nota r r e s t e d i n the door w a y , butr a the ri n the i nt e r i or of the ho m e. T he C ou rtup hel d t he w arra nt l es s a rr es tof S ant ana i n t he vest i bu l e of her hom e i n a tw o- pa r thol di ng. T he f i r s tpa r tc onc e r ne d S a nt a na ’ s e xpe c t a t i on of p r iv a c y u n d e rth e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t, a n d th e s e c o n d a d d r e s s e d th e p e r m is s ib ility of the s ubs e que ntpol i c e e ntr y i nt o the hom e . J us t i c e R e hnqui s t , w r i t i ng f orthe m a jo r ity , p u t it th is w a y r e g a r d in g S a n ta n a ’s e x p e c ta tio n o f p r iv a c y : In U ni t ed S t at es v. W at son, 42 3 U . S . 41 1 (19 76 ), w e hel d t hat th e w a r r a n tle s s a r r e s t o f a n in d iv id u a l in a p u b lic p la c e u p o n p r o b a b le c a us e di d notvi ol a t e the F our th A m e ndm e nt . T hus the f i r s tque s t i on w e m u std eci d e i s w h eth er, w h en th e p o l i ce fi rstso u g h tt o arrest S ant ana, she w as i n a pu bl i c pl ac e. W hi l e i tm a y be true tha tunde rthe c om m on l a w of pr ope r ty the thr e s hol d of

one ’ s dw e l l i ng i s “ pr i va t e , ” a s i s the y a r d s ur r oundi ng the hous e , i ti s none the l e s s c l e a rtha tunde rthe c a s e s i nt e rpr e t i ng the F o u r th A m e n d m e n t S a n ta n a w a s in a “p u b lic ” p la c e . S h e w a s n o t in a n a r e a w he r e s he ha d a ny e xpe c t a t i on of pr i va c y . “ W ha ta pe r s on k n o w in g ly e x p o s e s to th e p u b lic , e v e n in h is o w n h o u s e o ro f f ic e , is n o ta su b j ecto f F o u rth A m en d m en tp ro t ect i o n . ” K at z v . U n i t ed S t at es, 389 U . S . 347, 351 ( 1967) . S he w a s notm e r e l y vi s i bl e t o the publ i c but27

w a s a s e xpos e d t o publ i c vi e w , s pe e c h, he a r i ng, a nd t ouc h a s i f s he had b ee n st andi ng com pl et el y out si de her hou se . H es t erv. U ni t ed S t a t e s , 265 U . S . 57, 59 ( 1924) . T hus , w he n the pol i c e , w ho concededl y had prob abl e c ause t o d o so, soug htt o arr es ther, they m e r e ly in te n d e d to p e r f o r m a f u n c tio n w h ic h w e h a v e a p p r o v e d in W a t s on. I d. a t42. A s f

orthe por t i on of

S a nt a na r e ga r di ng the pe r m i s s i bi l i ty of the s ubs e que ntpol i c e e ntr y i nt o S a nt a na ’ s hom e , the C our ts t a t e d:

T he onl y r e m a i ni ng que s t i on i s w he the rhe ra c tof r e tr e a t i ng in to h e rh o u s e c o u ld th w a r t a n o th e r w is e p r o p e ra r r e s t. W e h o ld th a t it coul d n ot . In W ar den v . H ay den, 38 7 U . S . 29 4 (19 67 ), w e r ec og ni ze d the ri gh tof po l i ce , w ho had p robabl e c ause t o b el i eve thatan ar m ed robb erhad ent er ed a hou se a f ew m i nu t es before, t o m ake a w a r r a n tle s s e n tr y to a r r e s t th e r o b b e ra n d to s e a r c h f o rw e a p o n s . . . . T he f a c ttha tthe pur s ui the r e e nde d a l m os ta s s oon a s i tbe ga n di d not r e nde ri ta ny the l e s s a “ hotpur s ui t ” s uf f i c i e ntt o j us t i f

y the w arra nt l es s e nt ry i nt o S ant ana’ s hou se . O nce S ant ana s aw the po l i ce , th e r e w a s lik e w is e a r e a lis tic e x p e c ta tio n th a t a n y d e la y w o u ld r e s u lt i n d es truct i on of evi dence. I d. a t42–43. S ant ana i s both fac tual l y a nd l egal l y di st i ng ui shabl e f rom the i nst antca se . A s a f a c tua l m a t t e r , M c C l i s h w a s not“ a s e xpos e d t o publ i c vi e w , s pe e c h, he a r i ng, an d to u ch as if []h e h ad b ee n stan d in g co m p letely o u tsid e [ h is] h o u se .” S an tan a’s

“ ho m e” (a ctual l y a drug ho use) w as on a pub l i c s tre eti n a m aj or ci ty i n b road da y l i ght ; the pol i c e dr ove t o w i thi n f i f t e e n f e e tof he rf r ontdoor . I d. a t40. M o r e o v e r , S a n ta n a w a s n o t c le a r ly in s id e h e rh o m e . W h e n th e p o lic e p u lle d u p to the ho use, on e off

i ce r t es t i fi ed, as sum m ar i ze d b y the C ou rt , thatS ant ana w as28

st andi ng “ di re ct l y i n t he do orw ay -- on e s t ep forw ar d w ou l d h ave puther out si de, one s t e p ba c kw a r d w oul d ha ve puthe ri n the ve s t i bul e of he rr e s i de nc e . ” I d. a t40 n .1 . N o ta b ly , M c C lis h , u n lik e S a n ta n a , d id n o t h a v e to ta k e o n e s te p b a c k w a r d s in order t o b e f

i rm l y pl ant ed i nsi de hi s hom e, a tra i l erw i tho utal l of the am eni t i es of a l a r ge rhous e , s uc h a s a de f i na bl e c ha m be rbe tw e e n the out e rdoora nd the i nt e r i or of the dw el l i ng . S ee al so U ni t ed S t at es v. Q uaem pt s, 41 1 F . 3d 10 46 , 10 48 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( h o ld in g th a t a m a n w h o liv e d in a s m a ll tr a ile ra n d o p e n e d h is d o o rto pol i c e w hi l e r e m a i ni ng i n be d di d nota ba ndon hi s e xpe c t a t i on of pr i va c y a nd no t i ng that“ [t ] o ext end t he ho l di ng of [a N i nt h C i rc ui tca se fol l ow i ng S ant ana] be y ond the thr e s hol d i nt o the i nt e r i orof the hom e w oul d do vi ol e nc e t o the pr i nc i pl e s l a i d dow n i n P a y t on tha te s t a bl i s he d a z one of pr i va c y i ns i de the p h y s ic a l d im e n s io n s o f

o n e ’s h o m e ” ) . S an t an a, u n l i k e M cC l i sh , w as al read y st an d i n g “ d i rect l y i n th e d o o rw ay” w hen t he po l i ce arri ved t o arr es ther, no tas a r es ul tof the po l i ce kn ocki ng on her do or. S ee D un ca n v . S t ori e, 86 9 F . 2d 11 00 , 11 02 n. 5 (8t h C i r. 19 89 ) ( “ In S ant ana . . . th e s u s p e c t w a s n o t s u m m o n e d to th e d o o r . I n f a c t, s h e w a s a lr e a d y s ta n d in g in the op en do orw ay of her hom e w hen t he po l i ce arri ved and i dent i fi ed the m s e l ve s . ” ) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R e e d, 572 F . 2d 412, 422–23 ( 2d C i r . 1978) ( hol di ng tha ta w om a n a r r e s t e d w he n s he ope ne d he rdoort o pol i c e w a s noti n theConsider the followingexchang e from McClish’s deposition: 13 Q: When somebody

comes to visit you, -- A: That does not happen. 29 s a m e pos i t i on a s S a nt a na butr a the ri ns i de he rhom e , i n a pl a c e pr ot e c t e d by the F ou rth A m endm ent ). M oreover, S ant ana w as usi ng her hom e f or the com m er ci al purpos e of

na r c ot i c s s a l e s . S e e M i nne s ot a v. C a r t e r , 525 U . S . 83, 90–91 ( 1998) ( a c c or di ng s i gni f

i c a nc e t o the f

a c ttha ta r e s i de nc e ha d be e n us e d f ordrug s a l e s a nd not i ng tha tpr ope r ty us e d f orc om m e r c i a l purpos e s i s tr e a t e d di f f e r e nt l y unde rthe F o u r th A m e n d m e n t) . F in a lly , a n d n o ta b ly , S a n ta n a r e tr e a te d in to h e rh o m e w h ile hol di ng a br ow n pa pe rba g tha ttur ne d outt o be f i l l e d w i th drugs , a nd s he he l d $70 i n m a r ke d bi l l s gi ve n he rj us tm i nut e s be f or e dur i ng a c ontr ol l e d drug tr a ns a c t i on w i th a pol i c e i nf

or m a nt- - both f

a c t s the C our tf

ound s i gni f

i c a nt . S e e S a nt a na , 427 U . S . a t43 ( “ O nc e S a nt a na s a w the pol i c e , the r e w a s l i ke w i s e a r e a l i s t i c e xpe c t a t i on tha ta ny de l a y w oul d r e s ul ti n de s truc t i on of e vi de nc e . ” ) ; s e e a l s o i d. a t44 ( S t e ve ns , J . , c onc ur r i ng) ( “ T he de c i s i on [ t o e nt e r ] w a s j us t i f i e d by the s i gni f

i c a nt r i s k tha tthe m a r ke d m one y w oul d no l onge rbe i n S a nt a na ’ s pos s e s s i on i f the po l i ce w ai t ed un t i l a w arra ntcoul d b e obt ai ned. ”) . H er e, M cC l i sh w as st andi ng fi rm l y i nsi de the l i vi ng room of hi s hom e - - a trai l er l o cat ed i n a ru ral area, do w n a d i rtro ad an d b eh i n d an el ectri c g at e. M cC l i sh and H ol m berg rec ei ve fe w , i f a ny, vi si t s f rom m em bers of the pu bl i c, and w e f ee l 13Q: - - do they knock on the f

ront door? A: That does not happen, sir. Q: Okay . B ut i f t

hey wereto c ome , th e y

wo uld kn oc k o n th efront do or

to t e ll you that they ’rethere ? A: I assume. McClish Depo. 98. 30 q u ite s a f e in c o n c lu d in g th a t f

e w m e m b e r s o f

th e p u b lic w o u ld b o r r o w a g a te o p en er fro m a n ei g h b o r, d ri v e d o w n th e d i rtro ad p astth e “ n o tresp assi n g ” si g n s, a n d e n te rth e s c r e e n e d p o r c h a tta c h e d to th e h o m e - - a ll a f te r1 1 :3 0 a t n ig h t. A p p l yi n g th e S an t an a an al ysi s, M cC l i sh w as n o ti n a p u b l i c p l ace. In sh arp co n trast t o the m a r ke d bi l l s a nd drugs f ound i n S a nt a na , the r e w e r e no e xi ge nt c i r c um s t a nc e s he r e - - no r e tr e a t ; no hotpur s ui t ; no c onc e r ns w i th s poi l a t i on of e vi de nc e , be c a us e the a l l e ge d c r i m e w a s notof the ty pe ge ne r a l l y i nvol vi ng ph ys i ca l evi dence or cont raband ; and n o h i ntof any threa tt o o ff i ce r s af ety f rom an una r m e d, 75- y e a rol d m a n ope ni ng the doori n hi s ba thr obe a t11: 30 p. m . I nde e d, the ope r a t i ve f

a c t s of thi s c a s e e s t a bl i s he d tha tthe pol i c e ha d a n e xt e nde d pe r i od of t i m e w i thi n w hi ch t o o bt ai n a w arra ntfr om a neutra l and d et ac hed m agi stra t e. S an t an a al so d i ffers fro m th e p resen tcase as a m at t er o f l aw . In th e fi rst pl ac e, S ant ana di d n otre sol ve w hether e nt ry i nt o t he ho m e f or pu rposes of an a r r e s tw a s pe r m i s s i bl e w i thouta w a r r a nti n the a bs e nc e of a n e xi ge nc y s uc h a s hot pu rs ui t . In fa ct , P ay t on expres sl y r ef er ence d S ant ana i n a l i stof ca se s not i ng that the que s t i on ha d notbe e n de c i de d. S e e P a y t on, 445 U . S . a t574–575 & n. 1 ( “ T heB e fo rePay ton , th eCourt

ha d p revio us ly

intimate d th at w arrantl e ss in- ho mearre sts 14 were unconstitutional, but it had purposely and explicitly

reserved thequestion in a serie s of case s datingback more than two de cade s. See. e.g ., United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 418 n.6 (1976) (noting that Watson’s midday public arrest did not present the “ still unsettled qu e sti on . . . whe ther a

nd un der what c irc ums tanc e s a n o ff ic e r m ay e nter a su sp e c t’ s h ometo make a war rantless a rre st” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Santana, 427 U.S. at 45 (Mar shall, J ., dissenting) (“TheCourt declines today to settle the oft-re serve d question of whether and under

what circumstance s a police of ficer may enter the home of a

suspect in orde r to make a w arrantless ar

rest.”) ; Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 113 n.13 (1975) (“ The issue of war rantless a rre st that has g enerated the most controversy , and that remains unsettled, is whether and un der what c irc ums tanc e s an o ff ic e r m ay e nter a su sp e c t’ s h ometo m akea wa rrantl e ss arre st. ” ); se ea lso Coo lidg ev. New H amps hire , 4 03 U. S. 4 43 , 4 80 (1 97 1) ; Jone s v . Unit e d St ate s, 357 U.S. 493, 499–500 (1958). In Santana, the of

ficer followed Santa

na “through the open door , catc hing her in the 15 ve stibu le .”42 7 U .S. at 40 (emph a sis a dd e d) . TheCourt ’s ho ldingc le arly a c kn ow le dg e d th at th is “v es t ib u l e” -- a “ p as s age , h al l , o r c h amb er b etwe enth e o ut er

d o o r an d th e i nt er i o r o f ab u i l d i n g: a porc h or entra

nce into a house ,” Webster’ s Third NewInternational Dictionary 2547 (2002) - - was a private pla ce. SeeSantana, 427 U.S. at 43 ( “We thus concludethat a suspec t may not defe at an a

rre st which has been set in motion i n a public plac e . . . by the expedient of esc aping to a privateplace .” (emphasis added) ). 31 im p o r ta n t c o n s titu tio n a l q u e s tio n p r e s e n te d b y th is c h a lle n g e h a s b e e n e x p r e s s ly l e f tope n i n a num be rof

ourpr i oropi ni ons . ” ) . S e c ond, the pol i c e e ntr y i nt o a nd 14 arre stof S ant ana w i thi n t he vest i bu l e of herho m e, an ar ea the C ou rtre cogn i ze d as a pr i va t e pl a c e , w a s pe r m i t t e d on hotpur s ui tgr ounds - - noton the ba s i s tha ts he 15 h ad n o ex p ect at i o n o f p ri v acy i n th e v est i b u l e. S an t an a, 4 2 7 U . S . at4 3 ; see al so D unc a n, 869 F . 2d a t1102 n. 5 ( “ I tw a s , how e ve r , the e xi s t e nc e of e xi ge nt c ir c u m s ta n c e s [ in S a n ta n a ] - - a tru e h o t p u r s u it - - th a t p e r m itte d th e o f f ic e r s to pu rs ue the suspec ti nsi de her hou se . ” ( qu ot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed)) . M o reo v er, t o th e ex t en tth atS an t an a i s read as al l o w i n g p h ysi cal en try p ast P a y t on’ s f

i r m l i ne , bounde d by the “ una m bi guous phy s i c a l di m e ns i ons of theWe areawa re that other cour

ts grapplingwith the apparent tension betwe en Santana 16 and Pay ton have f

ollowed Santana’ s rea soning to the c onclusion that a per son openingthe door in response to a

knock from police has no re asonableexpectation of privac y . See, e.g ., McKinnon v. Carr , 103 F.3d 934, 935 ( 10th Cir. 1996) (per curiam); United States v. Vane aton, 49 F .3 d 1 42 3, 14 26 (9 th C ir . 1 99 5) ; Unit e d St ate s v . Ca rrion , 8 09 F .2 d 1 12 0, 11 28 –2 9 &n. 9 ( 5th Cir. 1987). Howe ver, f

ew, if a ny , of the c ases c ited by

Appellee s involved a situation where po lic ephysic a lly

e ntere d th eho mebe fo rethearre st. In V ane aton , f or e xamp le , th eNinth

Circ uit specific ally

noted that the police “ did not enter the houseuntil they formally place d Vane aton under a rre st.” 49 F.3d at 1427. In McKinnon, “[t] he off icer s did not inappropriately enter McKinnon’s home.”103 F.3d at 936. Finally , in Carrion, “thearrest was e ffe cted be forethe ag ents entered [the suspect’s] hotel room.” 809 F .2d at 1128. Here, by contra st, Deputy

Terr y re ac h edac ro s s th e thre s h o l d o f th e h o m e an d

grab b edM cC l i s hwi th o utwarn i n g. 32 h o m e ,” w ith o u t a w a r r a n t o ra n e x ig e n c y , th is in te rp r e ta tio n is in c o n s is te n t w ith P a y t on, the C our t ’ s s ubs e que ntc a s e s , a nd ourow n bi ndi ng pr e c e de nt . S e e K y l l o v. U n ite d S ta te s , 5 3 3 U .S . 2 7 , 4 0 ( 2 0 0 1 ) ; P a y to n , 4 4 5 U .S . a t 5 9 0 ; B a s h irv . R o c k d a le C ounty , 445 F . 3d 1323, 1330 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ; K ni ghtv. J a c obs on, 300 F . 3d 1272, 12 77 –7 8 (11 th C i r. 20 02 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. S ant a, 23 6 F . 3d 66 2, 67 5 (11 th C i r. 2000) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P a r r , 716 F . 2d 796, 814 ( 11th C i r . 1983) ; s e e a l s o L or i a v. G or m a n, 306 F . 3d 1271, 1284 ( 2d C i r . 2002) ( “ N o i nva s i on of the s a nc t i ty of

the hom e c a n be di s m i s s e d a s de m i ni m i s . ” ) ; i d. a t1286 ( “ P a y t on di d notdr a w the l i ne on e or tw o fee ti nt o t he ho m e; i tdrew the l i ne atthe ho m e’ s e nt ra nce. ”) ; U ni t ed S t at es v. B er ko w i t z, 92 7 F . 2d , 13 76 , 13 88 (7th C i r. 19 91 ) ( sa m e) . 16 T h is r e a d in g o f

S a n ta n a is a ls o in c o r r e c t b e c a u s e , a s th e S e v e n th C ir c u it o b s e r v e d , i t“ e q u a t e [ s ] k n o wl e d g e ( wh a tth e o f f i c e ro b t a i n s f

r o m th e p l a i n v i e w) w ith a r ig h t to e n te r , a n d b y d o in g s o p e r m it[ s ] th e ru le o f P a y to n to b e e v a d e d .”33

H adl ey v. W i l l i am s, 36 8 F . 3d 74 7, 75 0 (7t h C i r. 20 04 ). Iti s s urel y true thatan i ndi vi dua l w ho ope ns the doort o hi s hom e m a y pr ovi de a n of f i c e rw i th a ba s i s f

or fi nd i ng prob abl e c ause . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. T ob i n, 92 3 F . 2d 15 06 , 15 12 (11t h C i r. 19 91 ) ( en banc) (hol di ng that , w hen o ff i ce rs suspi ci ou s of drug act i vi ty app roac hed a h o u se , k n o ck ed , an d th e d o o r w as o p en ed , “ [t]h er e is n o d o u b t th at th e a g en t’ s s us pi c i ons r os e t o the l e ve l of pr oba bl e c a us e w he n, a s the doors t ood ope n, he de t e c t e d w ha the kne w f r om hi s l a w e nf

or c e m e nte xpe r i e nc e t o be the odorof m a r iju a n a ” ) . A n d , a s in T o b in , th e o p e n in g o f th e d o o rm a y a ls o g iv e r is e to exi gentci rc um st ance s. S ee i d. at15 11 –1 2 (ho l di ng thatan exi gency w as cr ea t ed w he n the of

f i c e ra tthe ope ne d doors m e l l e d m a r i j ua na a nd the s us pe c tw oul d ha ve be e n a w a r e of

the of f i c e r ’ s s us pi c i ons ) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P oe , 462 F . 3d 9 9 7 , 1 0 0 1 ( 8 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( f in d in g th a t th e s e iz u r e o f a f ir e a r m e x p o s e d in p la in vi e w a f t e rthe s us pe c tope ne d the doorw a s j us t i f i e d by the e xi ge ntc i r c um s t a nc e of of f i c e rs a f e ty ) . A ga i n, i n thi s c a s e , notw i ths t a ndi ng the s ugge s t i on f ound i n the spec i al concurri ng op i ni on , po stat64 -66, there i s notthe sl i gh t es ti nd i ca t i on that the offi ce rs perc ei ved t hatthe 75 -y ea r- ol d M cC l i sh, dres se d o nl y i n a bathrob e, p o sed an y th reatt o th e o ffi cer’s safety. T hu s, al tho ug h an i nd i vi du al w ho op ens the do or m ay prov i de an offi ce r w i th m ore i nform at i on than a pers on w ho choo se s t o rem ai n b ehi nd a c l osed34

door- - a nd, the r e f

or e , m a y w e l l pr ovi de a n of f i c e rw i th a ba s i s f

orf i ndi ng p r o b a b le c a u s e o ra n e x ig e n c y - - th is is q u ite d is tin c t f r o m c r e a tin g , a ll in its e lf , a r i ghtof e ntr y t o s e i z e a pe r s on f r om hi s hom e w i thouta w a r r a nt . M c C l i s h di d not c om pl e t e l y s ur r e nde rorf or f e i te ve r y r e a s ona bl e e xpe c t a t i on of pr i va c y w he n he o p e n e d th e d o o r , i n c l u d i n g , mo s tn o t a b l y , th e r i g h tt o b e s e c u r e w i th i n h i s h o me f r om a w a r r a nt l e s s a r r e s t . S e e H a dl e y , 368 F . 3d a t750 ( “ T he f a c ttha ta pe r s on answ er s a kn ock atthe do or do es n’ tm ea n h e a gree s t o l etthe pers on w ho kn ocked ent er . ”) ; B er ko w i t z, 92 7 F . 2d at13 87 (“ A nsw er i ng a kno ck atthe do or i s notan i nvi t a t i on t o c om e i n the hous e . ” ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M c C r a w , 920 F . 2d 224, 228 ( 4th C i r . 1990) ( “ W e hol d tha ta pe r s on doe s nots ur r e nde rhi s e xpe c t a t i on of p ri v acy n o r co n sen tt o th e o ffi cers’ en try b y [o p en i n g th e d o o r] , an d th ath i s arrest i ns i de hi s r oom unde rs uc h c i r c um s t a nc e s i s c ontr a r y t o the f our th a m e ndm e nta nd

. . . P a y t on. ” ) ; D unc a n v. S t or i e , 869 F . 2d 1100, 1103 ( 8th C i r . 1989) ; c f . H or t on v. C al i forni a, 49 6 U . S . 12 8, 13 7 & n. 7 (19 90 ). S i m pl y put , the fa ctthatan offi ce r m ay vi ew a s ubj ec ti n t he i nt er i or of a hom e throu gh an op en do or do es no tal t er the basi c rul e thata w arra nt l es s e nt ry i nt o t he ho m e t o eff ec tan arre sti s prohi bi t ed a b s e n t c o n s e n t o re x ig e n t c ir c u m s ta n c e s . P a y to n its e lf c o u ld n o t h a v e m a d e th is poi nta ny c l e a r e ri n the c a s e of R i ddi c k, w ho w a s s e e n i n be d by the pol i c e w ho peer ed i nsi de w hen R i dd i ck’ s s on vo l un t ar i l y opened t he do or. P ay t on v. N ew35

Y ork, 44 5 U . S . 57 3, 57 9 (19 80 ). In sum , P ay t on , deci ded fou r y ea rs af t erS ant ana, se tforth a bri gh t -l i ne rul e: w arra nt l es s i nt rusi on s bey on d t he “ zone of pri vacy ” del i m i t ed by the thres ho l d are pr e s um pt i ve l y unr e a s ona bl e . B e c a us e D e puty T e r r y c r os s e d P a y t on’ s f i r m l i ne a nd ph ys i ca l l y haul ed M cC l i sh ou tof hi s hom e, the arre stw as un l aw ful . T he fa ctthat M cC l i sh op ened the do or do es no tvi t i at e the w arra ntre qu i re m entw hen, as here , M c C l i s h r e m a i ne d e nt i r e l y w i thi n the hom e . M c C l i s h ne i the rc ons e nt e d t o the a r r e s t( i nde e d, by hi s a c c ount , he w a s notgi ve n the oppor tuni ty t o c ons e nt ) , nor w er e th er e e x ig en t circu m stan ce s in v o lv ed . In th e a b se n ce o f a w ar ra n t, M cC li sh ’s a r r e s t w a s , th e r e f

o r e , p r e s u m p tiv e ly u n r e a s o n a b le a n d in v io la tio n o f h is F o u r th A m endm entri gh tt o b e s ec ure i n h i s hom e.

B . H a v in g d e te r m in e d th a t T e r r y v io la te d M c C lis h ’s F o u r th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts dur i ng the w a r r a nt l e s s a r r e s t , how e ve r , w e m us ts t i l l a ns w e rw he the rthe vi ol a t i on w a s s o c le a r ly e s ta b lis h e d th a t T e r r y s h o u ld b e s tr ip p e d o f th e q u a lif

ie d im m u n ity cust om ar i l y gra nt ed l aw enforce m entoffi ce rs engaged i n t he di sc re t i on ary perf orm ance of thei r off

i ci al du t i es . T he cr i t i ca l i nq ui ry i s w hether the l aw p r o v id e d D e p u ty T e r r y w ith “f a irw a r n in g ” th a t h is c o n d u c t v io la te d th e F o u r th36

A m e n d m e n t. H o p e v . P e lz e r , 5 3 6 U .S . 7 3 0 , 7 4 1 ( 2 0 0 2 ) . W e th in k th e a n s w e ris no - - the l a w di d notpr ovi de the de puty w i th f a i rnot i c e w he n the a r r e s toc c ur r e d. A l though e xa c tf

a c tua l i de nt i ty w i th a pr e vi ous l y de c i de d c a s e i s not r e q u i r e d , th e c o n d u c tm u s th a v e b e e n c l e a r l y u n l a wf u l i n l i g h to f

p r e - e x i s t i n g l a w. S e e V i ny a r d v. W i l s on, 311 F . 3d 1340, 1350 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( “ [ T ] he s a l i e nt qu es t i on . . . i s w hether the st at e of the l aw . . . gave [the offi ce rs ] fa i r w arni ng that the i ra l l e ge d tr e a t m e ntof [ the pl a i nt i f

f ] w a s unc ons t i tut i ona l . ” ( quot i ng H ope , 536 U . S . a t741 ( f

i r s ta l t e r a t i on a dde d) ) ; s e e a l s o S a uc i e rv. K a t z , 533 U . S . 194, 205 ( 2 0 0 1 ) ( n o tin g th a t a m o tiv a tin g c o n c e r n o f th is im m u n ity in q u ir y is to

“ a c know l e dge tha tr e a s ona bl e m i s t a ke s c a n be m a de a s t o the l e ga l c ons tr a i nt s on part i cul arpo l i ce cond uct ”) . A s the S up re m e C ou rtre ce nt l y hel d, qu al i fi ed im m u n ity “s h ie ld s a n o f f ic e rf r o m s u it w h e n s h e m a k e s a d e c is io n th a t, e v e n if c ons t i tut i ona l l y de f

i c i e nt , r e a s ona bl y m i s appr e he nds the l a w gove r ni ng the c ir c u m s ta n c e s s h e c o n f

r o n te d .” B r o s s e a u v . H a u g e n , 5 4 3 U .S . 1 9 4 , 1 9 8 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . W e r e i tnotf

orU ni t e d S t a t e s v. S a nt a na , 427 U . S . 38 ( 1976) , thi s m i ghtha ve been a di ff

er entca se . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. N ew bern, 73 1 F . 2d 74 4, 74 8 (11 th C i r. 1984) ( “ T he l a w i s c l e a rtha tl a w e nf or c e m e ntof

f i c e r s a r e pr ohi bi t e d f

r om m a ki ng a w arra nt l es s a nd no ncon se nsual entry i nt o a suspec t ’ s hom e i n o rdert o m ake a f e lo n y a r r e s t.” ) ; s e e a ls o B a s h irv . R o c k d a le C o u n ty , 4 4 5 F .3 d 1 3 2 3 , 1 3 3 1 ( 1 1 thOnly the Supreme Court of F lorida has provided any substantive discussion of the 17 relation between thetwo case s. In By rd v. F lorida, 481 So. 2d 468 (Fla . 1985), the c ourt beg an by noting the dif

ficulty of dec iding whe ther Pay

ton applied to the war

rantless a rre st of a per son standing“at or

just withi n” a residenc e: Thereis no question that if appellant had be en aske d to step outside and had complied, the wa

rra ntless arre st outside the room would have be en proper and Pay ton would not apply . A significant que stion arises, however, when a war rantless a rre st occurs at or just within the thre shold of a re sidence . I d. at 472. The c ourt proce eded to de cide the c ase on theground that the policeentry was c on se nte d to by

thearre ste e , h oldingthat th esu sp e c t “ c on se nte d to thelaw enf orc e me nt o ff

ic e rs ’ entry into the threshold are a by voluntarily

openingthe door, steppingback, a nd standingin the thr e s h o l d a f t e r kn o w i n gwh o w a s p r e s e nt . ”Id . A s Ap p e l l ant s argu e , B yrd i s un d e n i a

b l y a c on se nt c a se . H ow e ver, it i s w or th obs e rv ingthat th eSup remeCourt of F lorida did g o o n to discuss case s involving nonconsensual arrests made under circumstances similar to McClish’s arre st: Thereis also a line of c ases whic h have he ld, in situations analog ous to that presented here, that an a

rre st at or in the threshold of a residenc e does not involve an entr y and, therefore, does not implicate Pay ton considerations. These ca ses 37 C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) ( h o ld in g , w ith re g ar d to an ar re st ef fe cted ten d ay s b ef

o re M cC li sh ’s a r r e s t , tha tP a y t on “ s e t s f or th the l a w w i th obvi ous c l a r i ty ” ( quot a t i on m a r ks o m itte d ) ) . I n lig h t o f

S a n ta n a , h o w e v e r , a n d s in c e M c C lis h w a s s ta n d in g w ith in a r m ’ s r e a c h of

a n of f i c e ra tthe f

r ontdoor , w e c a nnots a y tha tthe i l l e ga l i ty of M c C lis h ’s a r r e s t w a s c le a r ly e s ta b lis h e d a t th e tim e o f th e a r r e s t. N o S up re m e C ou rt , E l eventh C i rc ui t , or S up re m e C ou rtof F l ori da ca se s have res ol ved t he qu es t i on w hether P ay t on or S ant ana app l i es t o t he arre stof a pe r s on w ho, w hi l e s t a ndi ng f i r m l y i ns i de the hous e , ope ns the doori n r e s pons e t o a kn ock from the po l i ce and i s then p ul l ed ou t si de the un am bi gu ou s physi ca l di m ensi on s of the ho m e. H ow ever , the l aw of ot her c i rc ui t s m i gh thave perm i t t ed 17have c haracterized the threshold are a as a public placewherein a wa rra nt is not require d to effe ctuate a

valid arrest. I d. (citingUnited States v. Santana, 427 U .S. 38 (1976); United States v. Mason, 661 F .2d 45 (5th Cir. Nov. 1981); United States v. B otero, 589 F .2d 430 (9th Cir. 1978); and a number of non-F lorida state supreme cour t case s). 38 a n a r r e s tunde rf

a c t s s i m i l a rt o thos e pr e s e nt e d he r e . S e e , e . g. , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. V a ne a t on, 49 F . 3d 1423, 1426–27 ( 9th C i r . 1995) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a r r i on, 809 F . 2d 1120, 1127–28 ( 5th C i r . 1987) . T he s e de c i s i ons f r om othe rc i r c ui t s a r e not , of c o u r s e , d e te r m in a tiv e o f w h e th e re x is tin g la w in th is C ir c u it w a s c le a r ly e s ta b lis h e d . I n s te a d , th e y a r e s im p ly f u r th e rs u p p o r t f

o ro u rc o n c lu s io n : th a t in l i ghtof the a ppa r e ntt e ns i on be tw e e n S a nt a na a nd P a y t on, w e ha ve no ba s i s upon w hi c h t o c onc l ude tha ta r e a s ona bl e l a w e nf or c e m e ntof

f i c e rf a i r l y w oul d ha ve kn ow n t hatthe arre stal l eged by M cC l i sh, w i thi n t he ho use y etw i thi n rea ch of an of f i c e rs t a ndi ng out s i de , w a s unl a w f ul . I n s hor t , “ [ i ] f

j udge s thus di s a gr e e on a c ons t i tut i ona l que s t i on, i ti s unf a i rt o s ubj e c tpol i c e t o m one y da m a ge s f orpi c ki ng th e lo s in g s id e o f

th e c o n tr o v e r s y .” W ils o n v . L a y n e , 5 2 6 U .S . 6 0 3 , 6 1 8 ( 1 9 9 9 ) . W h ile w e b e lie v e th a t th e b e tte ra n s w e rto th e f ir s t q u e s tio n is th a t D e p u ty T e r r y ’s c o n d u c t w a s a v io la tio n o f th e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t, w e a r e c o n s tr a in e d to c o n c lu d e th a t th e u n la w f u ln e s s o f h is c o n d u c t w a s n o t s o c le a r ly e s ta b lis h e d a s to j ust i fy stri pp i ng hi m of qu al i fi ed i m m un i ty. A l tho ug h w e c on cl ud e thatP ay t on se t f or th a br i ghtl i ne rul e , A ppe l l a nt s ha ve f a i l e d t o m e e tthe i rbur de n of39

dem on stra t i ng thatthe l aw w as cl ea rl y e st abl i shed i n 2 00 1 b ec ause they have fa i l ed to d e m o n s tr a te , in lig h t o f S a n ta n a , th a t a r e a s o n a b le o f f ic e rw o u ld h a v e c le a r ly know n tha tM c C l i s h’ s a r r e s tw a s unl a w f ul . I f the r ol e of

the “ c l e a r l y e s t a bl i s he d” p r o n g o f th e q u a lif

ie d im m u n ity in q u ir y is to “a c k n o w le d g e th a t r e a s o n a b le m is ta k e s c a n b e m a d e a s to th e le g a l c o n s tr a in ts o n p a r tic u la rp o lic e c o n d u c t,” S a uc i e r , 533 U . S . a t205, the a ppa r e ntt e ns i on be tw e e n S a nt a na a nd P a y t on re qu i re s s uch an h on es tac kn ow l edgm enthere . III. In addi t i on t o M cC l i sh’ s § 19 83 cl ai m , hi s r oo m m at e E dm un d H ol m berg br oughta n i nde pe nde nt§ 1983 c i vi l r i ght s c l a i m a ga i ns tD e put i e s C a l de r one a nd T e r r y a l l e gi ng, a m ong othe rthi ngs , a r r e s tw i thoutpr oba bl e c a us e a nd the know i ng u s e o f f a l s e t e s t i mo n y i n th e p r e p a r a t i o n o f th e a r r e s ta f

f i d a v i t . H o l mb e r g c l a i ms thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n fi nd i ng thathi s § 19 83 cl ai m w as barr ed un der H ec k v . H u m p h re y, 5 1 2 U .S . 4 7 7 (1 9 9 4 ), b ec au se o f h is p ar ti cip atio n in F lo rid a’s pretri al i nt er vent i on (P T I) prog ra m . A s e xp l ai ned m ore f ul l y bel ow , w e a gree that H ec k i s i napp l i cabl e her e a nd ac cordi ng l y r ever se the fi nal order of s um m ary j udgm e nta nd r e m a nd H ol m be r g’ s § 1983 c l a i m f orf ur the rpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e nt w ith th is o p in io n .40

H e c k i nvol ve d the que s t i on w he the ra s t a t e pr i s one rc oul d c ha l l e nge the const i tut i on al i ty of hi s c ri m i nal conv i ct i on i n a ci vi l sui tfor dam ages un der § 1 98 3. Id. at47 8. T he C ou rthel d t hatH ec k’ s c l ai m w as no tcogn i zabl e und er § 1983 be c a us e of

the c onf l i c tbe tw e e n hi s c i vi l s ui ta nd hi s c r i m i na l c onvi c t i on: W e h o ld th a t, in o r d e rto r e c o v e rd a m a g e s f o ra lle g e d ly un const i tut i on al conv i ct i on or i m pri sonm ent , or for other harm caused by ac t i on s w ho se un l aw ful ness w ou l d render a c on vi ct i on or se nt ence i nv al i d, a § 19 83 pl ai nt i ff m ustprov e thatthe conv i ct i on or se nt ence has bee n revers ed on di re ctappeal , expu ng ed by execut i ve order, decl ar ed i nv al i d b y a st at e tri bu nal autho ri ze d t o m ake s uch de t e r m i na t i on, orc a l l e d i nt o que s t i on by a f e de r a l c our t ’ s i s s ua nc e of a w r it o f h a b e a s c o rp u s . A c la im f o rd a m a g e s b e a r in g th a t r e la tio n s h ip t o a c onvi c t i on ors e nt e nc e tha tha s notbe e n s o i nva l i da t e d i s not c ogni z a bl e unde r§ 1983. Id. at48 6– 87 (f

oo tno t e a nd ci t at i on om i t t ed). T hi s rul e i s des i gn ed, the C ou rt obs e r ve d, t o a voi d the pr obl e m i nhe r e nti n tw o pot e nt i a l l y c onf l i c t i ng r e s ol ut i ons a r i s i ng outof

the s a m e s e tof

e ve nt s by f

or e c l os i ng c ol l a t e r a l a t t a c ks on c onvi c t i ons thr ough the ve hi c l e of a § 1983 s ui t . I d. a t484–86. H e c k a r t i c ul a t e d tw o di f f e r e ntc a t e gor i e s of

c a s e s w he r e c onf

l i c t s m i ght a r i s e . T he pr i m a r y c a t e gor y of c a s e s ba r r e d by H e c k i nvol ve d s ui t s s e e ki ng da m a ge s f

ora l l e ge dl y unc ons t i tut i ona l c onvi c t i on ori m pr i s onm e nt . H ow e ve r , the C our ta l s o not e d tha ta s e c ond c a t e gor y of c a s e s - - s ui t s t o r e c ove rda m a ge s “ f or othe rha r m c a us e d by a c t i ons w hos e unl a w f ul ne s s w oul d r e nde ra c onvi c t i on or s e nt e nc e i nva l i d” - - r a i s e d s i m i l a rc onf l i c t s . I d. a t486 & n. 6; s e e a l s o E dw a r ds v.Assuming, a s the Court did, that the offe nse of resisting a rre st is defined as 18 “intentionally

preventing a

peac e off icer from ef fec ting a lawful a rre st.” Hec k, 512 U.S. at 486 n.6. 41 B al i sok, 52 0 U . S . 64 1, 64 5– 46 (199 7) (c hara ct er i zi ng the fi rs tca t egory a s in v o lv in g c h a lle n g e s to th e ju d g m e n t a n d th e s e c o n d a s in v o lv in g c h a lle n g e s to pr oc e dur e s tha t , i f

s uc c e s s f ul , w oul d ne c e s s a r i l y i m pl y the i nva l i di ty of the j ud gm ent ). In a f

oo tno t e i n H ec k, the C ou rtgave an exam pl e of a ca se prec l ud ed unde rthe s e c ond c a t e gor y : a n i ndi vi dua l w ho i s c onvi c t e d a nd s e nt e nc e d f orthe c r i m e of r e s i s t i ng a r r e s ta nd s ubs e que nt l y br i ngs a § 1983 c l a i m a l l e gi ng tha tthe of f i c e rvi ol a t e d the F our th A m e ndm e ntdur i ng he ra r r e s t . I d. a t486 n. 6. A l though thi s i ndi vi dua l w oul d notbe di r e c t l y s e e ki ng da m a ge s f orhe rc onvi c t i on, a s i n the f i r s tc a t e gor y , he rc onvi c t i on a nd he r§ 1983 c l a i m w oul d s ha r e a c om m on el em ent-- bo th requi re a det er m i nat i on of the l aw ful ness of her a rr es t . M ore 18 i m p o rt an t , t o su cceed o n h er § 1 9 8 3 cl ai m , sh e w o u l d h av e t o sh o w th ath er arrest w a s u n la w f

u l, a s h o w in g in c o n f

lic t w ith a c r im in a l c o n v ic tio n th a t n e c e s s a r ily ca m e t o t he op po si t e c on cl usi on on the sa m e i ss ue. T o avo i d t hi s c on fl i ct , the C ou rt h e ld th a t “a § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n th a t d o e s n o t s e e k d a m a g e s d ir e c tly a ttr ib u ta b le to c o n v ic tio n o rc o n f

in e m e n t b u t w h o s e s u c c e s s f u l p r o s e c u tio n w o u ld n e c e s s a r ily i m pl y thatthe pl ai nt i ff’ s c ri m i nal conv i ct i on w as w rong ful ” i s a l so no tcogn i zabl e. I d. a t486 n. 6.42

H ol m be r g’ s § 1983 c l a i m a r os e outof hi s a r r e s tf

ora l l e ge dl y i nt e r f

e r i ng w i th t he on go i ng arre stof M cC l i sh by D eput i es T erry and C al derone. T he depu t i es a r r e s t e d H ol m be r g f

or“ r e s i s t i ng a r r e s tw i thoutvi ol e nc e , ” s e e F l a . S t a t . § 843. 02, an d th e c h ar g e w as ev en tu ally d ism isse d w ith o u t p re ju d ice p u rs u an t t o F lo rid a’s pretri al i nt er vent i on prog ra m , se e F l a. S t at . § 8 43 . 02 . T he di stri ctcourtdet er m i ned th a t H e c k b a r r e d H o lm b e r g f r o m b r in g in g a § 1 9 8 3 c la im b e c a u s e o f h is p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n PT I . Al th o u g h we h a v e n e v e rd e t e r mi n e d th a tp a r t i c i p a t i o n i n PT I ba r r e d a s ubs e que nt§ 1983 c l a i m , the di s tr i c tc our tc i t e d t o S e c ond, T hi r d, a nd F i fth C i rc ui tca se s hol di ng thata def endant ’ s par t i ci pat i on i n P T I barre d s ubs e que nt§ 1983 c l a i m s . D i s t . C t . O r de ra t19–20 ( c i t i ng G i l l e s v. D a vi s , 427 F . 3d 197 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ; T a y l orv. G r e gg, 36 F . 3d 453 ( 5th C i r . 1994) ; R oe s c h v. O t ar ol a, 98 0 F . 2d 85 0 (2d C i r. 19 92 )) . T he di stri ctcourtthen con cl ud ed that

“ H ol m be r g’ s pa r t i c i pa t i on i n P T I , w hi c h r e s ul t e d i n a di s m i s s a l of the c ha r ge of r e s i s t i ng a r r e s tw i thoutvi ol e nc e , i s nota t e r m i na t i on i n hi s f a vor , a nd the r e f

or e , he i s barre d from bri ng i ng a § 19 83 cl ai m for f al se arre st . ” W e di sa gree . H ec k i s i napp osi t e. T he i ss ue i s not , as the di stri ctcourtsa w i t , w hether H o l m b erg ’ s p art i ci p at i o n i n P T I am o u n t ed t o a fav o rab l e t erm i n at i o n o n th e m eri t s. Inst ea d, the qu es t i on i s a n ant ec edenton e - - w hether H ec k app l i es atal l si nce H ol m berg w as never convi ct ed of any cr i m e. T he pri m ary c at egory of c as es barr ed43

by H e c k - - s ui t s s e e ki ng da m a ge s f ora n a l l e ge dl y unc ons t i tut i ona l c onvi c t i on or i m pri sonm ent-- i s pl ai nl y i napp l i cabl e. Inst ea d, the di stri ctcourtbase d i t s H ec k rul i ng on the se cond , i nd i re ctca t egory of c as es barr ed by H ec k: sui t s t o rec ov er dam ages “ for other harm caused by ac t i on s w ho se un l aw ful ness w ou l d render a c onvi c t i on ors e nt e nc e i nva l i d. ” H e c k, 512 U . S . a t486; s e e D i s t . C t . O r de ra t18. T h e p r o b le m w ith u s in g th is s e c o n d H e c k c a te g o r y to b a rH o lm b e r g ’s § 1 9 8 3 s u it is d e f in itio n a l - - to p r e v a il in h is § 1 9 8 3 s u it, H o lm b e r g w o u ld n o t h a v e to “n e g a te an el em entof the offens e of w hi ch he has been convic t ed, ” bec ause he w as never c onvi c t e d of

a ny of f e ns e . S e e H e c k, 512 U . S . a t487 n. 6; s e e a l s o W a l l a c e v. K a t o, 1 2 7 S . C t. 1 0 9 1 , 1 0 9 7

– 9 8 ( 2 0 0 7 ) ( o b s e r v in g , in a d if f e r e n t c o n te x t, th a t H e c k o n ly c om e s i nt o pl a y w he n the r e ha s be e n a n “ out s t a ndi ng c r i m i na l j udgm e nt ” or

“ e xt a ntc onvi c t i on, ” a nd tha tH e c k w a s notr a i s e d w he n “ the r e w a s i n e xi s t e nc e no c r im in a l c o n v ic tio n th a t th e c a u s e o f a c tio n w o u ld im p u g n ” ) . T h e d i stri ctco u rtm ay h av e b een co rrectth atd i sm i ssal o f th e ch arg e ag ai n st H ol m be r g pur s ua ntt o P T I w a s nota f a vor a bl e t e r m i na t i on on the m e r i t s , but ne i the rw a s i ta c onvi c t i on ors e nt e nc e . H ol m be r g’ s § 1983 s ui tdoe s notr e pr e s e nt th e s o r t o f

c o lla te r a l a tta c k f

o r e c lo s e d b y H e c k f

o rth e s tr a ig h tf

o r w a r d r e a s o n th a t it is n o t c o lla te r a l to a n y th in g - - th e § 1 9 8 3 /h ab e a s c o n f lic t a d d r e s s e d in H e c k isEv e n if wewereto a ssumethat H e c k s omeho w a pp lie s to thi s c a se , H olm

bergc or re c tly 19 c ite s to Ab us a id v . H ill sb orou gh Co unty B oa rd of County Commis sio ners , 4 05 F .3 d 1 29 8 ( 11 th Cir. 2005), for theproposition that the Supreme Court has appa rently rec eded f rom the idea

that H e c k ’ s f av o r a b l e - t e r m i n at i o nr e qu i r e m e nta l s o a p p l i e s t o n o n - i n c arc e r at e d i n d i v i d u a l s . In Abusaid, weaddre ssed the Court’s holdingin Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U .S. 1 (1998), and noted, in dicta, that Spencer indicate d that a majority of the Court had “ expressed the viewthat § 1983 claims arebarred only

when the alternative remedy of habe as re lief is available .” Abusaid, 405 F.3d at 1316 n.9 (citingthe Spencer concurrence of Justice Souter, joined by Justices O’Connor, Ginsburg , and B reyer, along w ith the dissent of Justice Stevens). The log ic of our reasoningin Abusaid, although dicta, is clea r: I f He ck only

bars § 1983 claims when thealternative reme dy of habe as cor

pus is available, then H eck ha s no application to H olm berg ’s c laim. Ho lmb e rgwa s n e ver in cus tod y at all, and

thereme dy

of ha be a s c or pu s is not currently

availableto him. Even if the district court wa s correct in conc luding that F lorida law would per

mit a prosecutor

to later “resur

rec t” a c harg e dismissed pursuant to PTI , a matter up on wh ic h w ee xpre ss n o o pinion , th estatut eof lim itatio ns fo r H olm

berg ’s a lle g e d v iol atio n is now longpast. See F la. Stat. § 843.02 (2006) (de finingthe offense of resisting a n officer without violence a s a first-de greemisdemeanor) ; Fla. Stat. § 775.15(2)( c) (providingfor a two-year statute of limitations for first-degreemisdemeanors) . 44 n o n e x is te n t w h e n , a s h e r e , th e r e w a s n e v e ra c o n v ic tio n in th e f ir s t p la c e . I n s h o r t,

19 t o d i sm i ss thi s § 19 83 cl ai m as barr ed by H ec k b ec ause of a pot ent i al confl i ctthat w e know now w i th c e r t a i nty w i l l ne ve rm a t e r i a l i z e w oul d s tr e t c h H e c k be y ond the l i m i t s of i t s r ea soni ng . C f. W al l ac e, 12 7 S . C t . at10 98 (e xp l ai ni ng thatH ec k d oes notba r“ a n a c t i on w hi c h w oul d i m pugn a n a nt i c i pa t e d f utur e c onvi c t i on” a nd c h a r a c te r iz in g th is th e o r y a s a “b iz a r r e e x te n s io n o f H e c k ” ) . D u r in g o r a l a r g u m e n t, how e ve r , w e a s ke d w he the rpr oba bl e c a us e t o a r r e s tH ol m be r g w oul d, i n a ny e ve nt , vi t i a t e H ol m be r g’ s c l a i m s i n w hol e ori n pa r t . S e e K i ngs l a nd v. C i ty of M i a m i , 382 F . 3d 1220, 1226 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . B uti na s m uc h a s thi s i s s ue w a s not a ddr e s s e d i n the di s tr i c tc our t , w e l e a ve thi s t oo f orthe di s tr i c tc our tt o e xa m i ne on45

re m an d . A cc o rd in g ly, w e r ev er se th e d istrict co u rt’s d eter m in atio n th at H o lm b er g ’s § 1983 c l a i m w a s ba r r e d unde rH e c k v. H um phr e y a nd r e m a nd thi s c l a i m f or fu rth er p ro ceed i n g s. A f t e rdi s m i s s i ng the f

e de r a l c l a i m s , the di s tr i c tc our ta l s o di s m i s s e d w i thout prej ud i ce the st at e l aw cl ai m s pursuantt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 36 7(c) (3), w hi ch prov i des th a t a d is tr ic t c o u r t “m a y d e c lin e to e x e r c is e s u p p le m e n ta l ju r is d ic tio n o v e ra c la im u n d e rs u b s e c tio n ( a ) if

. . . th e d is tr ic t c o u r t h a s d is m is s e d a ll c la im s o v e rw h ic h it ha s or i gi na l j ur i s di c t i on . . . . ” H a vi ng r e ve r s e d the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof su m m ar y ju d g m en t en tere d in fa v o r o f T er ry an d C ald er o n e a s to H o lm b er g ’s § 1 9 8 3 c la im , h o w e v e r , w e m u s t a ls o r e v e r s e th is d is m is s a l a n d r e m a n d th e s ta te l aw cl ai m s fo r fu rth er p ro ceed i n g s.

I V. I n s hor t , w e a f

f i r m the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a r y j udgm e ntf

or D ep u ty T erry as t o M cC l i sh ’ s § 1 9 8 3 cl ai m o n q u al i fi ed i m m u n i ty g ro u n d s, r e ve r s e the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a r y j udgm e ntf

orD e put i e s T e r r y a nd C al d ero n e o n th e g ro u n d s th atH o l m b erg ’ s § 1 9 8 3 cl ai m w as H eck -b arred , rev erse the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s di s m i s s a l of A ppe l l a nt s ’ s t a t e l a w c l a i m s , a nd r e m a nd f or f u r th e rp r o c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith th is o p in io n .46

A F F IR M E D IN P A R T , R E V E R S E D IN P A R T , A N D R E M A N D E D IN P A R T .Be causewe hold that the law was not cle arly

established at the time of the re levant 1 conduct, it would not be nec essar y to addre ss the constitutional iss ue in this case but f or the Supreme Court’s a dmonition i n Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S. C t. 2151, 2156 (2001) (“A c ourt re quire d to ruleup on

thequ a lif

ie d immunity

iss uemus t c on sid e r, then, thi s thre sh old question: Taken in the light most favorableto the party asser ting the injury, do the fa cts alleg ed show the off

icer ’s conduc t violated a constitutional right? This must be the initi al inquiry .”). Un fo rtun at el y , i nth i s ca s e, b ec au s e th e d ef en d ant s p re v ai l edo nth e c l earl y es t ab l i s h edp ro n g, the Saucier

rule not only

require s a constitutional holding that would be unne cessa ry otherwise; it also operate s to insulate from further appe llate re view an errone ous constitutional ruling that will guide theconduct of

police off

icer s in three state s. See B rossea u v. Haug en, 543 U.S. 194, 202, 125 S. Ct . 596, 601 (2004) ( Breyer, J., joined by Scalia &Ginsburg , J J ., concur ring ). Also, un der t heSa uc ie r a pp ro a c h, a

c ourt is h andic a

pp e d in a dd re ssingthec on sti tution a l is su ebe c a us e at le a st o nepa

rt y of te n h a s li ttl einc e nti veto l iti g atetheiss uevig orou sly, e sp e c ially wh e n it is a pp arent t hat th elaw i s n ot c le arly

e sta bli sh e d, a s in

thi s c a se . Si mil arly , o nly theSup reme Court’s mandate provides an incentive for busy federal judg es to focus intently on the issue; they lack the usual incentive that proper re solution of the matter will make a real differenceto a re al party . For

these re asons and other s, twenty-eight states and Puerto Rico haverec ently urg ed the Supreme Court in an amicus brief to re consider its mandatory Saucier approach to qualified immunity . See B rief f

or 28 States and Puer

to Rico as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner, Scott v. Harris, No. 05- 1631 (Supreme Court, De cember 2006). 47 A N D E R S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g e, co n cu rri n g sp eci al l y: I c o n c u rin th e r e s u lt a n d a g r e e w ith th e o p in io n o f th e m a jo r ity in s o f

a ra s it de t e r m i ne s tha tthe F our th A m e ndm e ntr i ghta ti s s ue w a s notc l e a r l y e s t a bl i s he d, a nd i ns of a ra s i tde t e r m i ne s tha tH e c k v. H um phr e y , 512 U . S . 477, 114 S . C t . 2364 ( 1994) , doe s notba rH ol m be r g’ s s ui t . H ow e ve r , I r e s pe c t f ul l y di s a gr e e w i th the m a j or i ty opi ni on i ns of

a ra s i tc onc l ude s tha tthe r e ha s be e n a vi ol a t i on of M c C l i s h’ s F our th A m e ndm e ntr i ght s . T hi s i s a n i s s ue w i th w hi c h c our t s ha ve 1 stru g g l ed , an d o n w h i ch th ere i s a sp l i to f au th o ri ty. I n my j u d g me n t , th e c o n tr o l l i n g c a s e i s U n i t e d St a t e s v . Sa n t a n a , 4 2 7 U . S. 38, 96 S . C t . 2406 ( 1976) . I n S a nt a na , pol i c e of f i c e r s s a w the s us pe c tpe r c he d on48

the thres ho l d o f herdo orw ay , w here “ on e s t ep forw ar d w ou l d h ave puther out si de, one s t e p ba c kw a r d w oul d ha ve puthe ri n the ve s t i bul e of he rr e s i de nc e . ” I d. a t40 n. 1, 96 S . C t . at24 08 n. 1. T he C ou rt , on i t s w ay t o a ho tpu rs ui tho l di ng , hel d t hat i tw oul d ha ve be e n l e ga l f orthe of f i c e r s t o a r r e s tS a nt a na i n he ri ni t i a l pos i t i on, e ve n though the y onl y ha d pr oba bl e c a us e a nd ha d notobt a i ne d a w a r r a nt . T he C our tc onc l ude d tha tS a nt a na w a s i n a publ i c pl a c e , w hi c h m e a nttha tno w a r r a nt w oul d ha ve be e n r e qui r e d, pur s ua ntt o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W a t s on, 423 U . S . 411, 96 S . C t . 820 ( 1976) . T he C our tr e a s one d: W hi l e i tm a y be true tha tunde rthe c om m on l a w of pr ope r ty the thr e s hol d of

one ’ s dw e l l i ng i s “ pr i va t e , ” a s i s the y a r d s ur r oundi ng the hous e , i ti s none the l e s s c l e a rtha tunde rthe c a s e s i nt e rpr e t i ng the F o u r th A m e n d m e n t S a n ta n a w a s in a “p u b lic ” p la c e . S h e w a s n o t in a n a r e a w he r e s he ha d a ny e xpe c t a t i on of pr i va c y . “ W ha ta pe r s on k n o w in g ly e x p o s e s to th e p u b lic , e v e n in h is o w n h o u s e o ro f f ic e , is no ta s ubj ec tof F ou rth A m endm entprot ec t i on . ” K at z v. U ni t ed S t a t e s , 389 U . S . 347, 351, 88 S . C t . 507, 511 ( 1967) . S he w a s not m e r e l y v i s i b l e t o th e p u b l i c b u twa s a s e x p o s e d t o p u b l i c v i e w, s p e e c h , h e a r in g , a n d to u c h a s if s h e h a d b e e n s ta n d in g c o m p le te ly ou t si de her hou se . . . . T hu s, w hen t he po l i ce , w ho concededl y had p r o b a b le c a u s e to d o s o , s o u g h t to a r r e s t h e r , th e y m e r e ly in te n d e d to pe r f or m a f unc t i on w hi c h w e ha ve a ppr ove d i n W a t s on. S a nt a na , 427 U . S . a t42, 96 S . C t . a t2409. T he i nst antca se i s l egal l y i nd i st i ng ui shabl e f rom S ant ana. W hen t he po l i ce of f i c e r s knoc ke d, M c C l i s h vol unt a r i l y ope ne d the door , the r e by e xpos i ng theVi e wingthefac ts in th elight m os t f avo ra bleto M c Clis h, no re a so na blejur y c ou ld 2 concludethat the door wa s not opened voluntarily . Under McClish’s version of the f acts, the officers knocke d on the door; McClish asked who w as there ; the officers answered “ Sheriff’ s Offic e”; a nd McClish opened the door a nd asked “ What happened?” beforebeingarrested. Th e reis n o e vid e nc eof

any sh owof fo rc eby thepo lic ethat c ou ld h avec oerc e d M c Clis h into openingthe door, nor is there any evidenc e that McClish felt coerce d.

49 door w a y a r e a t o the vi e w of the pol i c e . T he n, unde rM c C l i s h’ s ve r s i on of the 2 f a c t s , the pol i c e of

f i c e r s r e a c he d i n a nd gr a bbe d hi m f orthe purpos e of

dr a w i ng hi m on t o t he po rc h and arre st i ng hi m . B ec ause the po l i ce offi ce rs on l y r ea ched a c r o s s th e p la n e o f

th e d o o r , it is c le a rth a t it w a s p h y s ic a lly im p o s s ib le f o rth e m to s e e a ny m or e of

the hom e tha n M c C l i s h a l l ow e d the m t o s e e w he n he ope ne d the door . L i ke S a nt a na , M c C l i s h “ know i ngl y e xpos e [ d] ” both hi m s e l f a nd the i m m edi at e a re a behi nd hi s thres ho l d t o p ub l i c vi ew . M cC l i sh no l on ger had an “e x p e c ta tio n o f

p r iv a c y ” th a t th e o f

f ic e r s c o u ld h a v e v io la te d . H e w a s th e r e f o r e in a “p u b lic ” p la c e , ju s t a s S a n ta n a w a s , a n d u n d e rW a ts o n th e p o lic e n e e d e d o n ly prob abl e c ause , and n ota w arra nt , t o arr es thi m . T he offi ce rs adm i t t edl y had p r o b a b le c a u s e to a r r e s t, s o th e y d id n o t v io la te M c C lis h ’s r ig h ts u n d e rth e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t. Th e ma j o r i ty o p i n i o n r e l i e s o n Pa y t o n v . N e w Y o r k , 4 4 5 U . S. 5 7 3 , 1 0 0 S. C t. 1 3 7 1 (1 9 8 0 ), to co n clu d e th at th e p o li ce o ff icer s v io lated M cC li sh ’s c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts b e c a u s e th e ira r m s p a s s e d th e p h y s ic a l p la n e o f th e d o o rto h is hom e , a nd a w a r r a ntw oul d ha ve be e n ne c e s s a r y t o j us t i f y thi s i ntrus i on. P a y t on50

hel d t hatoffi ce rs m ust , abse ntexi gentci rc um st ance s, ob t ai n a w arra ntbefore they m a y e nt e ra s us pe c t ’ s hom e t o a r r e s ttha ts us pe c t . I d. a t590, 100 S . C t . a t1382. P ay t on , ho w ever , w as no ta doo rw ay arre stca se . T he i ss ue i n P ay t on w as sim p ly “w h eth er an d u n d er w h at circ u m stan ce s a n o ff icer m ay en ter a su sp ec t’ s ho m e t o m ake a w arra nt l es s a rr es t . ” I d. at57 5, 10 0 S . C t . at13 74 . T he C ou rt c h a r a c te r iz e d th is is s u e a s “n a r r o w .” I d . a t 5 8 2 , 1 0 0 S . C t. a t 1 3 7 8 . A n d th e f a c ts i n P ay t on i nv ol ved o ff

i ce rs penetra t i ng w el l i nt o t he i nt er i or of a s uspect ’ s hom e, no tsi m pl y r ea chi ng throu gh an op ened do or. In P ay t on ’ s c as e, offi ce rs kn ocked dow n the doora nd e nt e r e d w e l l i nt o the i nt e r i orof the dw e l l i ng. I n the c om pa ni on c a s e of R i ddi c k, the s us pe c t ’ s s on a ns w e r e d the door , a nd i n or de rt o a r r e s tthe suspec t , offi ce rs had t o ent erw el l i nt o t he i nt er i or of the ho m e. T he C ou rt th erefo re d i d n o th av e an o ccasi o n t o ex p ress a h o l d i n g o n th e d o o rw ay arrest s c e na r i o, w hi c h l i e s on the bounda r y be tw e e n P a y t on a nd W a t s on. Sa n t a n a , o n th e o th e rh a n d , w a s a d o o r w a y a r r e s tc a s e , a n d i s th e Su p r e me C ou rt ’ s l as tand o nl y w ord o n t he F ou rth A m endm entrul e a tthe op ened do or. It e xpl i c i t l y r e

j e c t e d a t e s ta tthe thr e s hol d tha tw oul d de pe nd on the pl a ne of the door . T he C our ts a i d, “ W hi l e i tm a y be true tha tunde rthe c om m on l a w of pr ope r ty the thr e s hol d of one ’ s dw e l l i ng i s ‘ pr i va t e , ’ a s i s the y a r d s ur r oundi ng the h o u s e , it is n o n e th e le s s c le a rth a t u n d e rth e c a s e s in te rp r e tin g th e F o u r th51

A m endm entS ant ana w as i n a ‘ pu bl i c’ pl ac e. ” S ant ana, 42 7 U . S . at42 , 96 S . C t . at 24 09 . T he C ou rt , i n st at i ng i t s hol di ng , spec i fi ca l l y use d t he w ord “ thres ho l d”; ac kn ow l edged t hatthe thres ho l d w as a s i gn i fi ca ntprop er ty l aw concept ; decl i ned t o a c c or d tha tc onc e pta ny s i gni f i c a nc e i n de f

i ni ng the s c ope of

the w a r r a nt req u i rem en t ; an d , ev en th o u g h S an t an a’ s b o d y w as p art i al l y i n si d e th atp ro p ertyla w th r e s h o ld , a d o p te d a n e x p e c ta tio n - o f - p r iv a c y te s t a n d h e ld th a t th e a r r e s t w o u ld ha ve be e n c ons t i tut i ona l . I d. S a nt a na the r e f or e s t a t e s the pr ope rt e s ta tthe v o l u n t ari l y o p en ed d o o rw ay. I n s te a d o f

f o llo w in g S a n ta n a ’s e x p e c ta tio n o f p r iv a c y h o ld in g , th e m a jo r ity op i ni on re l i es on l angu age draw n from the P ay t on op i ni on that , i n i t s vi ew , adop t ed a pl a ne - of

- the - doorrul e a tthe ope ne d door w a y . S e e P a y t on, 445 U . S . a t589, 100 S . C t . a t1381 ( “ [ T ] he c r i t i c a l poi nti s tha ta ny di f f e r e nc e s i n the i ntrus i ve ne s s of e n tr ie s to s e a r c h a n d e n tr ie s to a r r e s t a r e m e r e ly o n e s o f d e g r e e r a th e rth a n k in d . T he tw o i nt rusi on s s hare thi s f un dam ent al char ac t er i st i c: the br e a c h o f t he en tr an ce t o an i nd i vi du al ’ s hom e. ”) (e m ph as i s a dd ed); i d. at59 0, 10 0 S . C t . at 13 82 (“ [T ] he F ou rth A m endm enthas dra w n a f i r m l i ne a t t he e nt r a nc e t o t he h o u se . A b s e n t e x ig e n t c ir c u m s ta n c e s , th a t t hr e s ho l d m a y no t r e a s o na bl y be c r o s s e d w i tho uta w arra nt . ”) (e m ph as i s a dd ed). T h is la n g u a g e f

r o m P a y to n d id n o t o v e r ru le th e c le a rh o ld in g in S a n ta n a .As Pittwas spea king at a debate about sea rche s incident to the excise tax on cider, see 3 Mil le r v . Unit e d St ate s, 35 7 U .S. 30 1, 30 7, 78 S. Ct . 1 19 0, 11 95 (1 95 8) , h ewa s n ot intendingto makeany nu anc e d le g a l po int . Se eSte a g a ld v . Unit e d St ate s, 45 1 U .S. 20 4, 22 9- 30 , 1 01 S. Ct . 1642, 1656 (1981) ( Rehnquist, J ., dissenting) (makingthe point that Pitt’s statement wa s rhetoric , not leg al opinion, and noting that “parliamentary speakingability

and analy

tical leg al ability ought not to be equated w ith one another”). 52 T he C our ts a i d nothi ng s pe c i f i c a bouta r r e s t s a tthe ope ne d door w a y , a nd di d not m ake a ny choi ce betw ee n a pl ane- of-the-doo r or a n exp ec t at i on -of- pri vacy rul e. In f a c t, th e la n g u a g e a b o u t th r e s h o ld is b e s t r e a d a s d ic ta . I ts r h e to r ic a l s o u r c e is W i l l i a m P i t t ’ s f

a m ous quot e a boutthe hom e , c i t e d i n P a y t on: T h e r e c a n b e n o d o u b t th a t P itt’s a d d r e s s in th e H o u s e o f C o m m o n s in M a r c h 1763 e c hoe d a nd r e - e c hoe d thr oughoutthe C ol oni e s : “ T he poor e s tm a n m a y i n hi s c ot t a ge bi d de f i a nc e t o a l l the f

or c e s of the C r ow n. I tm a y be f

r a i l ; i t s r oof

m a y s ha ke ; the w i nd m a y bl ow thr ough i t ; the s t or m m a y e nt e r ; the r a i n m a y e nt e r ; butthe K i ng of E n g la n d c a n n o t e n te r– a ll h is f o r c e d a r e s n o t c r o s s t he t hr e s ho l d of the rui ned t enem ent !”

P ay to n , 4 4 5 U .S . at 6 0 1 n .5 4 , 1 0 0 S . C t. at 1 3 8 8 n .5 4 (e m p h as is ad d ed ). P ay to n ’s la n g u a g e a b o u t c r o s s in g th e th r e s h o ld s e e m s to h a v e b e e n d r a w n d ir e c tly f r o m th is spee ch. A nd nei ther P ay t on no r P i t texpres se d an o pi ni on on op en do orw ay a r r e s t s . R a the r , the y w e r e us i ng “ c r os s i ng the thr e s hol d” t o m e a n “ e nt e r i ng the

3The majority also cha rac terizes Santana a s a “hot pursuit” c ase. It is true that Santana’ s 4 second holding , the hot pursuit holding, is the one moreoften c ited. But that is simply a func tion of the re lative fre quency

of litigated doorwa

y arrest ca ses ver sus liti g ated hot pursuit ca ses. For example, it took m ore tha n thirty year s for the door

way arrest scena

rio to be squarely

presented to t his Court . TheSanta

na Court c le arly c on sid ere d th efirs t ho ldingto b ea ne c e ssa ry on e : it had to address the leg ality of the a rre st beca use it established that the off icer s did not impermissibly

cre ate the hot pur suit ex igency . See Santana , 427 U.S. at 42, 96 S. Ct . at 2409. 53 ho m e. ” B ot h P i t tand P ay t on w er e e ng agi ng i n t he l i t er ary devi ce of sy necdoche, w he r e by a pa r tof

a thi ng i s us e d t o r e f

e rt o the w hol e , a s i n the phr a s e “ a l l ha nds on de c k” t o r e f

e rt o “ a l l s a i l or s on de c k. ” T he y both us e d “ thr e s hol d” t o r e f e ri n a r h e to r ic a l w a y to th e “h o m e .” P a y t on s i m pl y di d nots pe a k t o the door w a y a r r e s ts c e na r i o, a nd the rhet ori ca l use of the w ord “ thres ho l d” shou l d n otbe re l i ed up on as havi ng deci ded the qu es t i on of the approp ri at e t es tatthe op ened do orw ay . P ay t on no w here op i ned a boutw he the ra pl a ne - of - the - doorora n e xpe c t a t i on- of - pr i va c y t e s tgove r ns a tthe ope ne d door w a y . T he P a y t on hol di ng i s thus e s s e nt i a l l y ne utr a l w i th r e s pe c tt o the pr ope rrul e f

ordoor w a y a r r e s t s . S a nt a na , on the othe rha nd, e xpl i c i t l y r e j e c t e d a p ro p erty l aw , p l an e-o f-th e-d o o r ru l e, an d sai d th ata w arran t l ess arresti s p ro p er so l ong a s the s us pe c tha s no e xpe c t a t i on of pr i va c y . I tthe r e f

or e c ont a i ns the c ontr ol l i ng pr i nc i pl e of

l a w i n the door w a y a r r e s ts i tua t i on. I n or de rt o c hoos e the di c t a of P a y t on ove rthe hol di ng i n S a nt a na , the m aj o ri ty m u stan d ap p aren t l y d o es arg u e th atP ayt o n o v erru l ed S an t an a, o r atl east confi ned i tt o i t s s peci fi c f ac t s. T hi s c on cl usi on i s unw arra nt ed. In the fi rs tpl ac e, 454

it is c le a rth a t P a y to n d id n o t o v e r ru le S a n ta n a . T h e C o u r t d o e s n o t o v e r ru le p r e c e d e n ts s u b s ile n tio . S e e A g o s tin i v . F e lto n , 5 2 1 U .S . 2 0 3 , 2 3 7 , 1 1 7 S . C t. 19 97 , 20 17 (199 7) (“ W e r ea ff i rm thati f a prec edentof thi s C ou rthas di re ct a ppl i c a t i on i n a c a s e , y e ta ppe a r s t o r e s ton r e a s ons r e j e c t e d i n s om e othe rl i ne of d eci si o n s, th e C o u rto f A p p eal s sh o u l d fo l l o w th e case w h i ch d i rect l y co n tro l s, le a v in g to th is C o u r t th e p r e r o g a tiv e o f o v e r ru lin g its o w n d e c is io n s .” ) . N o ris it a ppr opr i a t e t o r e a d P a y t on a s ove r rul i ng S a nt a na . A tthe t i m e of P a y t on, S a nt a na w as o n l y fo u r years o l d , an d p o st d at ed W at so n , th e sem i n al p u b l i c arrest case, b y a m ere si x m o n th s. M or e ove r , i n P a y t on the C our ta c tua l l y c i t e d S a nt a na , w i thoutove r rul i ng or e v e n q u e s tio n in g it, in its s tr in g c ite o f p r io rc a s e s d e a lin g w ith “p u b lic ” a r r e s ts . S ee P ay t on , 44 5 U . S . at57 5 n . 1, 10 0 S . C t . at13 74 n. 1. T he S ant ana C ou rthad b e e n a w a r e o f

th e is s u e o f

w a r r a n tle s s in - h o m e a rr e s ts : J u s tic e W h ite s p e c ia lly concurred t o m ake i tcl ea r thathe bel i eved w arra nt l es s i n-ho m e a rr es t s w er e const i tut i on al as a genera l m att erso l on g as off i ce rs had p robabl e c ause . S ee S a n ta n a , 4 2 7 U .S . a t 4 3 - 4 4 , 9 6 S . C t. a t 2 4 1 0 ( W h ite , J ., c o n c u r r in g ) . D e s p ite th is a w a r e ne s s of

the hom e i s s ue , S a nt a na a dopt e d a n e xpe c t a t i on- of - pr i va c y t e s ta tthe op ened do orw ay . Y etP ay t on di d n otov errul e S ant ana, and i t s a rr es tho l di ng has n e v e rb e e n q u e s tio n e d s in c e . T h e b e s t r e a d in g o f th is h is to r y is th a t S a n ta n a s e tsThe fact that the Court did not overruleSantana is itself re ason enough to rejec t the 5 ma jority op ini on ’s rule . T heCourt in S anta na said t hat arre sts on

thethre sh old

wi tho ut a war rant a re le g al. B ut common sense tells us that an off icer conductingan ar

rest at the literal threshold would nec essarily cross the pla

ne of thedoor in a great many threshold ar

rests. The ma jority ruleis thu s f

a c ially inc on sis te nt w ithSanta

na ’s ho lding , a

nd in e ff e c t ov e rr ule s a Supreme Court pre cedent on the basis of dicta in a nother SupremeCourt opinion. 55 fo rth th e p ro p er ru l e atth e o p en ed d o o rw ay. 5 I ti s a l s o c l e a rtha tthe r e a s oni ng of P a y t on di d noti m pl i c i t l y unde r m i ne the S a nt a na hol di ng. T he r a t i ona l e f orP a y t on w a s the pr ot e c t i on of the pr i va c y of

the hom e . T he C our tc onc l ude d tha t , e ve n though pr oba bl e c a us e gi ve s of f i c e r s a r i ght t o a rr e s tthe s us pe c t , the pr i va c y of the hom e j us t i f

i e s the a ddi t i ona l pr ot e c t i on of th e w a r r a n t in a h o m e a r r e s t s itu a tio n . P a y to n , 4 4 5 U .S . a t 5 8 8 , 1 0 0 S . C t. a t 1 3 8 1 . A s a re sul t , the P ay t on op i ni on i s s uffuse d w i th p ri vacy -prot ec t i on re as on i ng . S ee i d. ( “ a n e ntr y t o a r r e s ta nd a n e ntr y t o s e a r c h f ora nd t o s e i z e pr ope r ty i m pl i c a t e the sa m e i nt er es ti n p re se rvi ng the p r i v a c y a n d t h e s a n c t i t y o f t h e h o me , and j ust i fy the s a m e l e ve l of

c ons t i tut i ona l pr ot e c t i on” ) ( e m pha s i s a dde d) ; i d. a t588 n. 26, 100 S . C t . at13 81 n. 26 (“ T he deci si on s of thi s C ou rthave t i m e a nd agai n u nd er sc ored the e s s e nt i a l purpos e of the F our th A m e ndm e ntt o s hi e l d the c i t i z e n f r om u n w arran t ed i n tru si o n s i n t o h i s p ri va cy ” ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) ; id . a t 5 8 9 , 1 0 0 S . C t. at1 3 8 1 (“ T h e F o u rth A m en d m en tp ro t ect s th e i n d i v i d u al ’ s p ri va cy i n a va r i e ty of se t t i ng s. In no ne i s the zone of p ri va cy m ore c l ea rl y def i ned t han w hen b ou nd ed by the una m bi guous phy s i c a l di m e ns i ons of a n i ndi vi dua l ’ s hom e –a z one tha tf i ndsTo a lesser extent, Pay ton relied on the status of w arrantless in-home a rre sts under the 6 common law. Watson, which established that warrantless public ar rests are constitutional, relied in significa

nt part on the c ommon law’s ac cepta nce of such seizures. See Watson, 423 U.S. at 418, 96 S. Ct . at 825. Pay ton, on the other ha

nd, conclude d that the common law sourc es we re at best equivocal as to the status of ar rests without a wa

rra nt inside the home. Pay

ton, 445 U.S. at 596-98, 100 S. Ct. at 1385-86. This was another rea son, in addition to the spec ial privac y of the home, for departingfrom the Watson rule. The SupremeCourt has rec ognized, however , that the common law g enerally permitted a wa rrantl e ss a

rre st ins idetheho mewh e n th eoute r doo r w a s o pen. Se eSte a g a ld v . Unit e d St ate s, 4 5 1 U. S . 2 0 4 , 2 1 7 n . 1 1 , 1 0 1 S . C t . 1 6 4 2 , 1 6 5 0 n . 1 1 (1 9 8 1 ) ( “Un d er th e c o mm o nl aw , a p ri v i l ege attache s to the outer door of a dwe lling, bec ause. . . it is the owner ’s ca stle. . . . Thus, an open outer door w as appa

rently reg arde d as the e quivalent of a consent of theoccupa

nt for the constable to e nter the homeand conduc t a sea rch.” ) (inter

nal punctuation omitted). The common law sourc es appe ar to c onfirm the Court’s statement. For e x ample, Coke, who w as int e rp re te d in

Pay ton a s p ro sc ribin gwa

rrantl e ss in- ho mearre sts , a pp e are d to a c c ept s uc h a

rre sts where the door

was ope n. See 4 E. Coke, Institut es *178 (“ [I ]f the door of the housebe open, [the consta

ble] may enter into the same, and a

rre st the party .”). Seealso Semay ne’s Case , 5 Co. Rep. 91a, 77 Eng . Rep. 194 (K. B . 1603) (c ited in Pay ton, 445 U.S. at 592, 100 S. C t. at 1383) (“That in all cases when the door is open, the sheriff ma y enter the house a

nd do execution at the suit of any

subject, either

of the body

or of the g oods, and so may the lord in such ca se enter the h o u s ean d

d is tra in f o r h is r e nt o r

s e r v ic e . ” ) ; M . F o s ter , Cro wnL aw3 1 9 - 2 0 ( 1 7 6 2 ) ; 4 W. Bla ckstone, Commentarie s *289. Be causethe common law a pparently permitted open door arre sts wi tho ut a

wa rrant, Santa

na is a s c on sis te nt w ithPay ton ’s c omm on -l aw ratio nalea s it is 56 i t s r oot s i n c l e a ra nd s pe c i f i c c ons t i tut i ona l t e r m s . ” ) ( e m pha s i s a dde d) ; i d. a t596, 100 S . C t . a t1385 ( “ T he c om m on- l a w s our c e s di s pl a y a s e ns i t i vi ty t o p ri va cy i n te re st s thatcoul d n othave been l oston the F ra m er s. ”) (e m ph as i s a dd ed). T h e S a n ta n a ru le is c o n s is te n t w ith P a y to n ’s p r iv a c y - p r o te c tio n r a tio n a le . S a nt a na s i m pl y s a y s tha tw he n a s us pe c tha s vol unt a r i l y r e l i nqui s he d the pr i va c y of th e h o m e in th e d o o r w a y a r e a , th e P a y to n c o n c e r n f o rth e p r iv a c y o f

th e h o m e is no tpres entand t he pu bl i c a rr es trul e of W at son app l i es . T he suspec tneed no top en the door . B uti f

he c hoos e s t o do s o, the of f i c e r s do notof

f e nd the r a t i ona l e of Pa y t o n b y s i mp l y r e a c h i n g i n a n d g r a b b i n g h i m. 6with Pay

ton’s privac y-protec tion rationale. 57 T he m a j or i ty opi ni on a r gue s tha tthe S a nt a na a ppr oa c h e r ode s the pr ot e c t i on o f Pa y t o n b e c a u s e i ta l l o w s o f f i c e r s t o s e i z e w h a t e v e rth e y c a n s e e i n s i d e a h o me thr ough a n ope ne d door . B utthe S a nt a na a ppr oa c h doe s note xt e nd tha tf a r . T he S a nt a na rul e ope r a t e s onl y i ns of a ra s the s us pe c tvol unt a r i l y r e l i nqui s he s s om e of th e p r iv a c y o f

th e h o m e . I n o th e rw o r d s , th e S a n ta n a ru le s u b je c ts to s e iz u r e o n ly w h a t th e o f

f ic e rc a n s e iz e w ith o u t s e e in g m o r e o f th e h o m e th a n w a s v o lu n ta r ily expo se d. T hu s, the offi ce r c an se i ze the suspec tw ho i s w i thi n rea ch of the offi ce r s t a ndi ng a tthe thr e s hol d be c a us e the of f i c e rdoe s notthe r e by i ntrude f ur the ron the suspec t ’ s pri vacy than w hatthe suspec thad v ol un t ar i l y r el i nq ui shed. O n t he ot her h a n d , th e o f

f ic e rw h o a r r e s te d R id d ic k in P a y to n c o u ld n o t r e a c h R id d ic k w h ile s t a ndi ng a tthe ope ne d door . H e w a l ke d pa s tthe ope ne d door , i nt o the hous e , thus in tru d in g f

u r th e ru p o n p r iv a c y th a n th e v o lu n ta ry o p e n in g o f th e d o o re x p o s e d . F r o m th e in te r io ro f

th e h o u s e , w h e r e th e o f f ic e rs e iz e d R id d ic k , th e o f f ic e rc o u ld s e e de t a i l s a nd a r e a s of

the hous e notvol unt a r i l y e xpos e d by the ope ni ng of the f r o n t d o o r . T h a t w a s th e c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n in R id d ic k ’s c a s e . S e e a ls o K y llo v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 533 U . S . 27, 37, 121 S . C t . 2038, 2045 ( 2001) ( “ I n the hom e , our c a s e s s how , a l l de t a i l s a r e i nt i m a t e de t a i l s , be c a us e the e nt i r e a r e a i s he l d s a f e f r om pryi ng go vernm entey es ) ( em ph as i s i n o ri gi nal ).58

T he s c ope of

S a nt a na i s thus c ons i s t e ntw i th R i ddi c k’ s c a s e a nd doe s not unde r m i ne the P a y t on rul e , c ontr a r y t o the m a j or i ty ’ s s ugge s t i on. I n f a c t , by l e a vi ng the doorc l os e d, a s us pe c tc a n a l w a y s , i n the a bs e nc e of e xi ge nt c ir c u m s ta n c e s o rs o m e o th e re x c e p tio n to th e w a r r a n t r e q u ir e m e n t, f o r c e o f f ic e r s to obt a i n a w a r r a ntbe f

or e e nt e r i ng the hom e t o a r r e s t . A nd by ope ni ng the door , the suspec tl oses the prot ec t i on of the P ay t on rul e onl y i nsofaras the offi ce rs ca n a c c o m p lis h th e a r r e s t w ith o u t s e e in g a n y d e ta il th a t th e s u s p e c t d id n o t v o lu n ta r ily expo se . N otonl y ha s S a nt a na ne ve rbe e n ove r rul e d ore ve n que s t i one d by the S upr e m e C our t , a nd notonl y i s i ti n ha r m ony w i th the r a t i ona l e of the P a y t on d e c is io n : it is a ls o m o r e c o n s is te n t w ith F o u r th A m e n d m e n t ju r is p ru d e n c e in ge ne r a l tha n the m a

j or i ty opi ni on’ s a ppr oa c h. T he m a j or i ty opi ni on r e a ds P a y t on t o s uppor ta br i ght - l i ne rul e a tthe pr ope r ty - l a w pl a ne of the ope ne d door . B ut bri gh t -l i ne rul es ar e genera l l y di sf avored un der the F ou rth A m endm ent ’ s gl ob al c om m a nd of

“ r e a s ona bl e ne s s . ” I n O hi o v. R obi ne t t e , 519 U . S . 33, 117 S . C t . 417 ( 1 9 9 6 ) , th e C o u r t s a id , “W e h a v e lo n g h e ld th a t th e to u c h s to n e o f th e F o u r th A m e ndm e nti s r e a s ona bl e ne s s . R e a s ona bl e ne s s , i n tur n, i s m e a s ur e d i n obj e c t i ve t e r m s by e xa m i ni ng the t ot a l i ty of the c i r c um s t a nc e s . I n a ppl y i ng thi s t e s tw e ha ve c o n s is te n tly e s c h e w e d b r ig h t- lin e ru le s , in s te a d e m p h a s iz in g th e f a c t- s p e c if

ic59

na tur e of the r e a s ona bl e ne s s i nqui r y . ” I d. a t39, 117 S . C t . a t421 ( c i t i ng F l or i da v. Bo s t i c k , 5 0 1 U . S. 4 2 9 , 1 1 1 S. Ct . 2 3 8 2 ( 1 9 9 1 ) ; M i c h i g a n v . Ch e s t e r n u t , 4 8 6 U . S. 567, 108 S . C t . 1975 ( 1988) ; F l or i da v. R oy e r , 460 U . S . 491, 103 S . C t . 1319 (198 3); and S chneckl ot h v . B ust am on t e, 41 2 U . S . 21 8, 93 S . C t . 20 41 (197 3)). T he di sf avored st atus of bri gh t -l i ne rul es i n t he F ou rth A m endm entar ea m ea ns thatthe C ou rtnever adopt s s uch rul es by i m pl i ca t i on or sub si l ent i o. In every c as e w here the C ou rthas a do pt ed a bri gh t -l i ne rul e, the C ou rthas t aken great pa i ns t o j us t i f

y w hy the nor m a l pr e s um pt i on a ga i ns ts uc h rul e s s houl d be di s r e ga r de d i n the pa r t i c ul a rc ont e xt . F ore xa m pl e , i n N e w Y or k v. B e l t on, 453 U . S . 454, 460, 101 S . C t . 2860, 2864 ( 1981) , the C our the l d tha tthe e nt i r e i nt e r i or of an aut om ob i l e i s w i thi n t he grab are a of a n arr es t ee for purpo se s of the C hi m el se ar ch-i nci dent -t o-arre strul e. T he C ou rtexpl i ci t l y di sc usse d w hy ot her m ore n u a n c e d ru le s w e r e u n w o r k a b le , a n d u ltim a te ly d e c id e d in n o u n c e r ta in te r m s “to e s t a bl i s h the w or ka bl e rul e thi s c a t e gor y of c a s e s r e qui r e s . ” I d. S e e a l s o O l i ve rv. U n ite d S ta te s , 4 6 6 U .S . 1 7 0 , 1 8 1 - 8 2 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 1 7 3 5 , 1 7 4 3 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ( e x p lic itly ju s tif y in g b r ig h t- lin e ru le th a t o p e n f ie ld s a r e n o t p r o te c te d b y F o u r th A m e ndm e nt ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R obi ns on, 414 U . S . 218, 234- 35, 94 S . C t . 467, 476 ( 1 9 7 3 ) ( e x p lic itly ju s tif

y in g s e a r c h in c id e n t to a r r e s t w ith o u t r e g a r d to i nd i vi du al i ze d ass es sm entof dang er ou snes s) .Th ema jority op ini on no t on ly a ssert s th at Pa

y ton e sta bli sh e d a bright- lin erule , b ut also 7 argues that the line ha s been “re- inked” many times. But the cited c ases all simply quoted the l an gu a g eo f

P ay t o no nth e i r

w ay t o h o l d i n g s th atd i d

n o ti nv o l v ea

v o lunt ari l y

o p e n e d d o o r . In Kirk v. L ou isi ana , 5 36 U. S. 6 35 , 6 36 , 1 22 S. Ct . 2 45 8, 24 58 (2 00 2) , th eof fi c ers e ntere d w e ll into the interior of the home , without the justi fication of exi g ent circumstances. In New Y ork v. Har ris, 495 U.S. 14, 15, 110 S. C t. 1640, 1642 (1990), the suspec t did not open the door v o lunt ari l y , a s th ep o l i c ed i s p l aye d th e i r gun s an d b a d g e s t o g e tth es u s p e c tt o o p e nth ed o o r . In Steag ald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 101 S. Ct. 1642 (1981), the issue was whe ther police need a search wa

rra nt (in addition to an arrest war rant) to a rre st a third party

in someone else’ s home; the Court conclude d that police do nee d a sea rch w arrant. B ut police intruded we ll insi de the home, and thecasemere ly repe ated the r

hetoric f rom Pay ton in a quotation, without expressing a

view on the door

way arrest situation. I d. at 206, 101 S. Ct. at 1644. Th ema jority find s it s st

ro ng e st l anguag ein K

yllo v. Un ite d St ate s, 53 3 U .S. 27 , 1 21 S. Ct. 2038 (2001). But Ky

llo involved neither a door way nor an a rre st. The majority

opinion’s quotes from Ky

llo werealso not talking a bout a bright line at the door. Thefirst quote says that “the F ourth Amendment dra ws a fir m line at the entra

nce to the house . . . . That line, wethink, must be not only

firm, but also bright–which re quires cle ar spe cification of those methods of surveillancethat requirea wa rra nt.” I d. at 40, 121 S. Ct. at 2046. There theCourt was not talkinga bo ut a pla ne -o f- the -doo r r

uleat th eop e ne d d oo r, but rather w a s c ho os ingthere lativ e ly bright-line, categ orical test for whe n surveillanceequipment ca n be used to obser

ve a home . As in other F ourth Amendment bright-line-rulecase s, the Court expl icitly justified its bright-line rule. The sec ond quote is, “[W ]e [ have] made c lear that any phy sical invasion of the struc ture of theho me , b y

e ven a fra c tio n o f a

n in c h, [is] to o mu c h, and thereis c e rt a inly

no e xcepti on

to the war rant re quirement for

the offic er who bare ly

cracks open thefront door a nd sees nothing but the nonintimate rugon the vestibule floor.”I d. at 37, 121 S. Ct. at 2045. Here too the Court was not ratifying a

bright-line rule at the opened door way, but rather

respondingto an argument 60 P a y to n , b y c o n tr a s t, c o n ta in s n o d is c u s s io n a t a ll o f th e b r ig h t- lin e - ru le is s u e . I tdi d note xpl i c i t l y s t a t e tha tthe l a w a tthe ope ne d door w a y w oul d be gove r ne d by th e p la n e o f

th e d o o r . N o rd id it c o n ta in a n y r e a s o n in g to ju s tif y s u c h a r e s u lt. R ather, i tsi m pl y c on t ai ned t he l angu age abo ut“ entra nce” and “ thres ho l d, ” w hi ch it u s e d r h e to r ic a lly to r e f e rto “th e h o m e .” P a y to n th e r e f o r e c a n n o t b e r e a d to est ab l i sh a d i sfav o red b ri g h t -l i n e ru l e atth e p l an e o f th e o p en ed d o o rw ay, e s p e c ia lly in lig h t o f

S a n ta n a ’s c o u n te r v a ilin g h o ld in g th a t is d ir e c tly o n p o in t. 7by

the g overnment that only techniques that detect “private de tails” of home lifearesearches. Th eCourt

wa s ma kin gthepo int

that any de tail, e ven o nea

fra c tio n o f a

n in c h in sid ethedo or , is considere d private. TheCourt did not opine on what happens at the opened door , where the suspect voluntarily

reve als some of those private details. Kyllo, like Pay ton, simpl y

was not an opened door

way arrest ca se. And its rationale , like Pay ton’s, does not apply

where the suspec t has voluntarily

relinquished some of theprivac y of the home. The Eleventh Circuit cases c ited in the constitutional section of the majority ’s opinion are also inapposite (a s they

must be, since wehold that the law wa s not clearly established in Florida at th etim eof

there le va

nt c on du c t) . Se eB a sh ir

v. Roc kd a leCounty, 4 45 F .3 d 1 32 3, 13 26 (1 1th Cir. 2006) (suspec t entere d home without inviti ngpolice, police f ollowed him inside, penetrating well into interior bef

ore a rre sting); Knight v. J acobson, 300 F .3d 1272, 1277-78 (11th Cir. 2002) (ar rest took placeafter suspec t left the home, therefore Pay ton did not apply); United States v. Santa, 236 F.3d 662, 666 ( 11th Cir. 2000) (offic ers entere d well into interior of home w ithout war rant, no e x igent circumstanc es); United States v. Parr , 716 F.2d 796, 814 ( 11th Cir. 1983) (no e xig e nt c irc ums tanc e s wherefire fi ghter intr ud e d w e ll i ns ideho me ). Th e sec a se s si mply repe ated the Pay

ton dicta as a

figurative or

shorthand wa

y of re fer ringto “the home.”Just as the Pay ton Court did. 61 A pl a ne - of

- the - doorrul e i s doubl y di s f a vor e d be c a us e the C our tdoe s not ordi nari l y def

i ne F ou rth A m endm entprot ec t i on s by r ef er ence t o p roperty- l aw concept s. S i nce K at z v. U ni t ed S t at es , 38 9 U . S . 34 7, 88 S . C t . 50 7 (19 67 ), i thas been cl ea r thatthe F ou rth A m endm entprot ec t s pri vacy , no tprop er ty. S ee i d. at 353, 88 S . C t . a t512 ( “ [ T ] he pr e m i s e tha tpr ope r ty i nt e r e s t s c ontr ol the r i ghtof the G ov ernm entt o sea rc h and se i ze has bee n d i sc re di t ed. . . . [T ] he re ac h o f [ the] A m e n d m e n t c a n n o t tu r n u p o n th e p r e s e n c e o ra b s e n c e o f a p h y s ic a l in tru s io n in to any gi ven encl osure. ”) . T he w arra ntre qu i re m entt oo ordi nari l y s er ves t o p rot ec t pri vacy . S ee John son v . U ni t ed S t at es , 33 3 U . S . 10 , 14 , 68 S . C t . 36 7, 36 9 (“ W hen the ri gh tof p ri va cy m us tr e a s ona bl y y i e l d t o the r i ghtof s e a r c h i s , a s a rul e , t o be de c i de d by a j udi c i a l of f i c e r , notby a pol i c e m a n orG ove r nm e nte nf or c e m e nt62

a ge nt . ” ) ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . P a y t on w a s w e l l w i thi n thi s tr a di t i on w he n i tr e l i e d on the s pe c i a l pr i va c y of

the hom e t o j us t i f

y a w a r r a ntr e qui r e m e ntf ora r r e s t s i ns i de the ho m e. S ant ana w as al so w i thi n t hi s tra di t i on w hen i thel d t hatan arre stw as

“ p u b l i c” w h ere th e su sp ecth ad rel i n q u i sh ed th atex p ect at i o n o f p ri v acy. B uti tw ou l d b e i ncon si st entw i th t hese ca se s t o ext end P ay t on t o cas es w h ere p ri v acy i s n o ti m p l i cat ed , si m p l y b ecau se th e o ffi cer cro ssed th e p ro p ertyla w p la n e o f

th e d o o r . T h e C o u r t h a s e s c h e w e d s u c h a p r o p e r ty - b a s e d a p p r o a c h . S e e , e . g. , O l i ve rv. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 466 U . S . 170, 183- 84, 104 S . C t . 1735, 1743- 44 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ; F r a z ie rv . C u p p , 3 9 4 U .S . 7 3 1 , 7 4 0 , 8 9 S . C t. 1 4 2 0 , 1 4 2 5 ( 1 9 6 9 ) . M or e ove r , i tha s a voi de d r e l y i ng on pr ope r ty l a w c onc e pt s e ve n w he n a na l y z i ng c a s e s tha ti nvol ve the hom e . S e e , e . g. , K y l l o v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 533 U . S . 27, 32, 121 S . C t. 2 0 3 8 , 2 0 4 2 ( 2 0 0 1 ) ( “W e h a v e . . . d e c o u p le d v io la tio n o f a p e r s o n ’s F o u r th A m e ndm e ntr i ght s f

r om tr e s pa s s or y vi ol a t i ons of hi s pr ope r ty ” ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. K ar o, 46 8 U . S . 70 5, 71 2-13 , 10 4 S . C t . 32 96 , 33 02 (198 4) (“ T he exi st ence of a p h y s ic a l tr e s p a s s is o n ly m a r g in a lly r e le v a n t to th e q u e s tio n o f w h e th e rth e F o u r th A m e ndm e ntha s be e n vi ol a t e d. . . f ora n a c tua l tr e s pa s s i s ne i the rne c e s s a r y nor s u f f i c i e n tt o e s t a b l i s h a c o n s t i tu t i o n a l v i o l a t i o n . ” ) ; W a r d e n v . H a y d e n , 3 8 7 U . S. 294, 304, 87 S . C t . 1642, 1648 ( 1967) ; S i l ve r m a n v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 365 U . S . 505, 5 1 1 , 8 1 S . C t. 6 7 9 , 6 8 2 (1 9 6 1 ). It w o u ld th u s b e in co n sisten t w ith th e C o u rt’s63

o v e r a ll a p p r o a c h to a d o p t a p la n e - o f - th e - d o o rru le h e r e . S a n ta n a is c o n s is te n t w ith th e C o u r t’s d o m in a n t K a tz a p p r o a c h , a n d e v e n c ite d K a tz in its r e a s o n in g s e c tio n . I tr e c o g n i z e s th a tw h e r e th e p r i v a c y o f th e h o me h a s b e e n r e l i n q u i s h e d , th e h o me a r r e s trul e ha s no a ppl i c a t i on. F i na l l y , S a nt a na c ont a i ns the c or r e c tr e a di ng of the F our th A m e ndm e nt b e c a u s e th a t r e a d in g is th e m o r e r e a s o n a b le o n e . T h e “to u c h s to n e ” o f th e F o u r th A m e ndm e nti s r e a s ona bl e ne s s . S e e , e . g. , S a m s on v. C a l i f or ni a , 126 S . C t . 2193, 2201 ( 2006) ; B r i gha m C i ty v. S tua r t , 126 S . C t . 1943, 1947 ( 2006) ; B d. of E duc . v. E arl s, 5 3 6 U . S . 8 2 2 , 8 2 8 , 1 2 2 S . C t . 2 5 5 9 , 2 5 6 4 (2 0 0 2 ). T h e reaso n ab l en ess r e q u i r e me n ta p p l i e s w i th e q u a l f o r c e t o th e h o me . I n M a r y l a n d v . Bu i e , 4 9 4 U . S. 325, 110 S . C t . 1093 ( 1990) , the C our ts t a t e d: O ur ca se s s ho w thati n d et er m i ni ng re as on abl enes s, w e have bal ance d th e i n tru si o n o n th e i n d i v i d u al ’ s F o u rth A m en d m en ti n t erest s ag ai n st its p r o m o tio n o f

le g itim a te g o v e r n m e n ta l in te r e s ts . . . . U n d e rth is te s t, a s e a r c h o f

th e h o u s e o ro f

f ic e is g e n e r a lly n o t r e a s o n a b le w ith o u t a w arra nti ss ued o n p robabl e c ause . T here ar e other c on t ext s, ho w ever , w h e r e th e p u b lic in te r e s t is s u c h th a t n e ith e ra w a r r a n t n o rp r o b a b le c a us e i s r e qui r e d. I d. a t331, 110 S . C t . a t1096- 97. S e e a l s o S tua r t , 126 S . C t . a t1947; I l l i noi s v. M c A r thur , 531 U . S . 326, 331, 121 S . C t . 946, 950 ( 2001) ( w he r e s e a r c h “ a voi d[ e d] s i gni f i c a nti ntrus i on i nt o the hom e i t s e l f , ” the C our ts a i d, “ r a the rtha n e m pl oy i ng a per s e rul e of unreas on abl enes s, w e bal ance the pri vacy -r el at ed and l aw64

enforce m ent -r el at ed concerns t o d et er m i ne i f the i nt rusi on w as re as on abl e. ”) . H e r e , the ba l a nc e of

pr i va c y - r e l a t e d a nd l a w - e nf or c e m e nt - r e l a t e d c onc e r ns c le a r ly p o in ts in f

a v o ro f th e S a n ta n a ru le . B y h y p o th e s is , th e p r iv a c y in te r e s t is m i ni m al or no nexi st entbeca use the suspec thas e xp osed hi s doo rw ay t o t he offi ce rs a nd r e l i nqui s he d a ny pr i va c y i nt e r e s tthe r e i n. O n the gove r nm e nts i de of the b a la n c e , in a d d itio n to th e g o v e r n m e n t’s o b v io u s in te r e s t in a r r e s tin g th e s u s p e c t, the r e i s a s tr ong gove r nm e nt a l i nt e r e s ti n of f i c e rs a f e ty . T he C our tha s l ong r e c ogni z e d tha tof

f i c e rs a f e ty i s a c onc e r n w he ne ve rof f i c e r s a nd a r r e s t e e s or pot e nt i a l a r r e s t e e s a r e i n c l os e pr oxi m i ty . S e e , e . g. , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R obi ns on, 414 U .S . 2 1 8 , 2 2 6 , 9 4 S . C t. 4 6 7 , 4 7 2 ( 1 9 7 3 ) ( a d o p tin g s e a r c h - in c id e n t- to - a r r e s t ru le in p a r t f o ro f f ic e r - s a f e ty r a tio n a le ) ; C h im e l v . C a lif o r n ia , 3 9 5 U .S . 7 5 2 , 7 6 3 , 8 9 S . C t. 2034, 2040 ( 1969) ( a uthor i z i ng l i m i t e d w a r r a nt l e s s a nd s us pi c i onl e s s s e a r c h of ho m e i nci dentt o l aw ful arre stof suspec tfor off i ce r- prot ec t i on ra t i on al e) . In B ui e the C ou rtca nd i dl y a ckno w l edged t he ri sks off i ce rs fa ce w hen t hey a r r e s t a s u s p e c t in th e h o m e . T h e r e th e C o u r t a llo w e d a lim ite d w a r r a n tle s s s a f e ty s w e e p of the hom e , i nc i de ntt o a r r e s tof a s us pe c t , upon r e a s ona bl e s us pi c i on, a nd not e d: T he ri sk of dang eri n t he cont extof an arre sti n t he ho m e i s a s gre at as , i f notgrea t erthan, i ti s i n an o n-the-s tre etor roadsi de i nv es t i gat ory encoun t er . A T erry or L on g fri sk occurs before a pol i ce -c i t i ze n c onf r ont a t i on ha s e s c a l a t e d t o the poi ntof a r r e s t . A pr ot e c t i ve s w e e p,65

i n c ontr a s t , oc c ur s a s a n a dj unc tt o the s e r i ous s t e p of t a ki ng a pe r s on in to c u s to d y f

o rth e p u rp o s e o f

p r o s e c u tin g h im f

o ra c r im e . M or e ove r , unl i ke a n e nc ount e ron the s tr e e tora l ong a hi ghw a y , a n i nh o m e a r r e s t p u ts th e o f

f ic e ra t th e d is a d v a n ta g e o f b e in g o n h is a d v e r s a r y ’ s “ tu r f

. ” An a m b u s h i n a c o n f i n e d s e t t i n g o f

u n k n o wn confi gu ra t i on i s m ore t o b e f ea re d t han i ti s i n o pen, m ore f am i l i ar su rro u n d i n g s. B ui e , 494 U . S . a t333, 110 S . C t . a t1098. W he n a s us pe c ta ns w e r s a knoc k a tthe d o o r , a n d p r o b a b le c a u s e e x is ts to a r r e s t th a t s u s p e c t, th is s a m e o f f ic e rs a f e ty ra t i on al e i s i f a nythi ng m ore pres si ng . T he offi ce rs and t he ac tual suspec tar e s e p a r a te d b y a r m ’s le n g th o n ly . R e q u ir in g a c tu a l e x ig e n t c ir c u m s ta n c e s to de ve l op, s a y by the s us pe c tdr a w i ng a gun, c oul d be f a t a l i n m a ny s i tua t i ons . A nd th ere i s l i t t l e o r n o p ri ce fo r en su ri n g o ffi cer safety by all o w i n g th e arrest, b ecau se there i s no p ri vacy i nt er es tatst ake. B y c o n tr a s t, th e m a

jo r ity o p in io n ’s ru le a llo w s a s u s p e c t f o rw h o m th e r e is prob abl e c ause t o o pen t he do or and t hu m b h i s nose i n o ff i ce rs ’ fa ce s s o l on g as e x ig e n t c ir c u m s ta n c e s d o n o t e x is t. T h e m a jo r ity ru le s e r v e s n o F o u r th A m endm enti nt er es t , beca use by hypot hesi s the pri vacy i nt er es thas bee n r e l i nqui s he d. A nd i ts ubj e c t s of f i c e r s t o the r i s k of

da nge r . N ori s i ti m pr ope rf or offi ce rs t o k no ck on a doo r w i tho uta w arra ntw hen t he pu bl i c c ou l d d o so. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. T ay l or, 45 8 F . 3d 12 01 , 12 04 (11t h C i r. 20 06 ). In som e c as es there m ay no teven have been a pri or op po rtun i ty t o g eta w arra nt . C as es show that66

of f i c e r s l e gi t i m a t e l y f

i nd the m s e l ve s a ta n ope n doorw i th pr oba bl e c a us e a nd no w a r r a n t in a v a r ie ty o f

s itu a tio n s w h e r e e x ig e n t c ir c u m s ta n c e s a r e n o t y e t p r e s e n t. S e e , e . g. , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G or i , 230 F . 3d 44, 47 ( 2d C i r . 2000) ( of f i c e r s c onduc t i ng s t a ke outobs e r ve d by de l i ve r y pe r s on, a c c om pa ni e d de l i ve r y pe r s on t o door be c a us e w or r i e d tha tde l i ve r y pe r s on w oul d not i f y s us pe c t s ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. V a ne a t on, 49 F . 3d 1423, 1425 ( 9th C i r . 1995) ( of f i c e r s i nve s t i ga t i ng not or i ous i t i nera ntbu rgl arhapp ened t o com e a cr oss hi m st ay i ng atthe sa m e m ot el w here c r i m e c om m i t t e d) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S e w e l l , 942 F . 2d 1209, 1211 ( 7th C i r . 1991) ( pr oba bl e c a us e de ve l ope d a tthe ope n door ) . I n a ddi t i on, the S a nt a na rul e doe s not di s c our a ge of

f i c e r s f r om obt a i ni ng w a r r a nt s , a s the r e i s no gua r a nt e e tha ta ny one ( mu c h l e s s th e s u s p e c t ) w i l l a n s w e rth e d o o rw h e n o f f i c e r s c o me k n o c k i n g . By c o n tr a s t, th e p la n e - o f

- th e - d o o rru le tie s o f

f ic e r s ’ h a n d s in a p o te n tia lly v o la tile s i tua t i on, a nd pr e c l ude s the m f r om t a ki ng pr e ve nt i ve a c t i on tha tm i ghts a ve o f f ic e r s ’ liv e s . I t is th u s u n r e a s o n a b le , in a d d itio n to b e in g in c o n s is te n t w ith p r e c e d e n t. B ec ause of al l of the re as on s s up po rt i ng the S ant ana rul e–i t s pre ce dent i al a uthor i ty , i t s c ons i s t e nc y w i th P a y t on, i t s c ons i s t e nc y w i th F our th A m e ndm e nt j u ri sp ru d en ce, an d i t s reaso n ab l en ess– m o stco u rt s co n si d eri n g th e d o o rw ay arrest s i tua t i on ha ve f

ol l ow e d the S a nt a na rul e . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G or i , 230 F . 3d 44,Ia c kn ow le dg ethereis s omete ns ion be tw e e n G ori and

a pre -P ay ton Se c on d Circuit 8 de c isi on , Unit e d St ate s v . Re e d, 57 2 F .2 d 4 12 (2 d Cir. 19 78 ). In a ny e vent, my

po sition is considera bly narrower than Gori: I

would hold that an offic er ma y intrude no fur

ther than the ar e a th at h a s b e e nv o lu

nta rily e xp o s e d , wh e r e a s G o ri a p p e ar e d to a ll o wano f

f ic e r to s e iz e anyon ewh o mi ght b evis ibl ethrou gh th eop e ne d d oo r, e ven if loc ate d o uts idetheimm e diate doorwa y are a. Th ema jority op ini on c ite s L oria

v. Go rm an, 30 6 F .3 d 1 27 1, 12 84 (2 d Cir. 20 02 ). Th is 9 c a sede a lt w itha

c la ssi c Pay

ton sit uatio n, wh e retheof

fi c e r p us he d o pen th edo or and fo rc e d h is way inside to arre st the suspect. See L oria, 306 F .3d at 1286 (“ L oria wa s not in the doorway . Rather, hewas at least a door’ s width inside the house when heattempted to close thedoor.”) . The Sec ond Circuit appea rs to adhere to the Santana rule at the open door. SeeUnited States v. Gori, 230 F .3d 44, 52 (2d Cir. 2000) (“ The facts critical to the analysis are that the interior of Apar tment 1M was exposed to public view when thedoor wa s voluntarily opened. And the principle that g overns those f acts is found in United States v. Santana , not Pay ton.”). B ut cf. United States v. Reed, 572 F .2d 412 (2d Cir. 1978). 67 52 (2d C i r. 20 00 ); M cK i nn on v. C arr, 10 3 F . 3d 93 4, 93 5 (10 th C i r. 19 96 ); U ni t ed 8 S ta te s v . V a n e a to n , 4 9 F .3 d 1 4 2 3 , 1 4 2 7 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ; U n ite d S ta te s v . S e w e ll, 9 4 2 F .2 d 1 2 0 9 , 1 2 1 2 ( 7 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) ; D u n c a n v . S to r ie , 8 6 9 F .2 d 1 1 0 0 , 1 1 0 2 ( 8 th C i r . 1989) ( butf

i ndi ng f a c ti s s ue on vol unt a r i ne s s ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a r r i on, 809 F . 2d 1120, 1128 ( 5th C i r . 1987) ( f ol l ow i ng S a nt a na a nd U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a s on, 661 F . 2d 45, 47 ( 5th C i r . N ov. 9, 1981) ) ; C i ty of F a r go v. S t e f

f a n, 639 N . W . 2d 48 2, 48 4 (N . D . 20 02 ); S t at e v. S ant i ago, 61 9 A . 2d 11 32 , 11 35 (C on n. 19 93 ); P e opl e v. M or ga n, 447 N . E . 2d 1025, 1028 ( I l l . 1983) ; S t a t e v. P a tr i c e l l i , 324 N . W . 2d 351, 354 ( M i nn. 1982) . T he c a s e s f ol l ow i ng the pl a ne - of

- the - door 9 approach are l es s num er ou s a nd , on the w ho l e, l es s w el l re as on ed. S ee U ni t ed S t a t e s v. B r a dl e y , 922 F . 2d 1290, 1295 ( 6th C i r . 1991) ; S t a t e v. C l a r k, 844 S . W . 2d 597, 599 ( T e nn. 1992) ( f ol l ow i ng P a y t on, though w i thoutc i t i ng S a nt a na ) ; S t a t e v.The majority opinion also argues that “f ew, if a ny” of thecase s cited in this paragraph 10 involved a physical crossing of the plane of

the door. Oneof the c ases de finitively involved a reachingacross the plane of the door. SeeCity

of F arg o v. Steffan, 639 N .W.2d 482, 483 (N.D. 2002). Other

case s did not specify

whether the ar rest wa s phy sical or non- phy sical, instead sim ply statin gthat an “ arre st”oc c ur re d. Se eUn ite d St ate s v . Wh itt e n, 70 6 F .2 d 1 00 0, 10 15 (9 th Cir. 1983); United States v. Mason, 661 F.2d 45, 47 ( 5th Cir. Nov. 9, 1981); State v. Santiag o, 619 A.2d 1132, 1135 (Conn. 1993); State v. Patrice lli, 324 N.W .2d 351, 352 (Minn. 1982). Be causethe ca ses involved doorwa y arrests, common sense indicates that at lea st some of them arebound to have involved a physical crossing. More over, it make s sense that those opinions did not specify

the pre cise mea

ns of the ar

rest, bec ause they

relied not on whe ther the pla ne of th ed o o r w a s c r o s s e d , b utr ath e r

o nth ea b s e n c eo f ane xp e c t at i o no f

p ri v a c y. Stil l other ca ses involved fa cts where the suspec t opened the door and the of

ficers acc omplished the arrest by non-physical mea

ns. For e x ample, in some ca ses the off icer arrested the suspect by

telling the suspe ct he wa s under a rre st; in others by

pointing a gun at the suspec t. But in almost all of these c ases, the reasoningwas not base d on the absence of a physical crossing . These c ourts upheld the ar rest not bec ause it wa s non-physical, but rather bec ause the suspect no long er had an expectation of privacy . See United States v. Gori, 230 F.3d 44, 47 (2d Cir. 2000) (off

icer said “Everyone step out into the hallway !”) ; McKinnon v. Carr, 103 F .3d 934, 93 5 ( 10 th C ir . 1 99 6) (o ff

ic e rs tol d s us pe c t hewa s und e r a rre st, then f

oll ow e d h im i nto ho meto re trie vehis c lot

he s) ; Unit e d St ate s v . V ane aton , 4 9 F .3 d 1 42 3, 14 25 (9 th C ir . 1 99 5) (o ff ic e r t old suspect he w as under

arrest, then ente red hote l room); United States v. Carrion, 809 F .2d 1120, 11 23 (5 th C ir . 1 98 7) (o ff

ic e r p ointin ggun

ordere d s us pe c t to raiseha nd s, then entere d roo m to physically

arrest); People v. Morg an, 447 N.E.2d 1025, 1027 ( I ll. 1983) (offic ers told suspect he was under ar

rest, then a ccompa

nied into home to obtain clothes). In fac t, in McKinnon, Vane aton, Carrion, and Morg an, the of ficers physically

crosse d the plane of

the door immediately

afte r initiating the a

rre st. These c ases a

re thus leg ally

indisti nguishable from the i n s t antc a s e , wh e r eth eo f f i c e r s a l s o v i o l at e d

n o e xp e c t at i o no f

p ri v a c y. Only two jurisdictions appear

to rec ognize a distinction between physical and non68 A ul t , 724 P . 2d 545, 552 ( A r i z . 1986) ( hol di ng door w a y a r r e s ti l l e ga l , though w i thoutc i t i ng P a y t on orS a nt a na ) ; S t a t e v. H ol e m a n, 693 P . 2d 89, 91 ( W a s h. 1985) ( f ol l ow i ng P a y t on, though w i thoutc i t i ng S a nt a na ) ; S t a t e v. M or s e , 480 A . 2d 183, 186 ( N . H . 1984) ( f

ol l ow i ng P a y t on) ; S t a t e v. G e or ge , 317 N . W . 2d 76, 80 ( N e b. 19 82 ) ( sa m e, w i tho utci t i ng S ant ana) . F or exam pl e, on l y tw o o f the ca se s fol l ow i ng the pl ane- of-the-doo r app roac h even ci t ed S ant ana: B ra dl ey and M orse . 10physic a l arre sts . TheSe venth and Ei ghth Circuit s re quir eof

fi c e rs to a nn ounc ethe ir

int e nti on to arrest before physically

crossingthe plane of

the door. CompareUnited States v. Sewell, 942 F.2d 1209, 1210 ( 7th Cir. 1991) (ar rest constitutional whereofficers ar rested suspe ct at the door , be fo ree nteringthea

pa rtme nt) wi th Unit e d St ate s v . B e rkow itz, 92 7 F .2 d 1 37 6, 13 85 -8 8 ( 7th Cir. 1991) (ar

rest unconstitutional whereofficers crossed plane be foreannouncingsuspect wa s un der a rre st) . Se ea lso Dunc an v . St orie , 8 69 F .2 d 1 10 0, 11 03 (8 th C ir . 1 98 9) (v e rs ion of fac ts where off icer s told suspect he wa s under a rre st and told him t o come out of housewould state no constitutional viol ation, but version where off icer s phy sically

arrested be foretelling suspec t he was under ar

rest would be unc onstitut ional). However, thedistinction m ade in thesecase s is not well founde d. Whether the off icer acc omplishes the arre st by reachingacross the plane of the door or by

pointing a gun, if the off icer has not violated an e xpectation of privacy, he has not violated the F ourth Amendment under Santana . The F ourth Circuit dealt with a doorw ay arrest scena

rio in United States v. McCraw , 11 920 F.2d 224 ( 4th Cir. 1990), a ca se cited in the ma jority opinion. But therethe suspect opened the door only

a crack, a

nd there foredid not relinquish his P ay ton expectation of privac y . I d. at 228. As a re sult, the Court was not dealingwith a true Santa na situation, and did not have occa sion to consider what rule should apply at the voluntarily

opened door

way . In fac t, the Four th Circuit explicitly

rec ognized that “Mathis did not relinquish completely his expectation of privac y .”I d. at 22 9. Mc Craw there fo redid no t se ttl ewh e ther S anta

na or Pay ton a pp lie s in theF ourt h Circuit . As discussed supra , note 10, the Seventh a nd Eighth Circuits have adopte d a modified Santa na a pp ro a c h. Th e y

re quireof

fi c e rs to a nn ounc ean inte nti on

to a rre st b e fo rephy sic a lly crossingthe plane of

the door. B ut since these c ircuits allow an a rre st to occur at the open door without a war

rant where thesuspect is firmly inside the home, and sincethey appea r to allow officers to cross the pla

ne so longas they

first announc e their intention to arrest, they should be counted a s havingsubstantially adopted the Santa

na approach. The majority

opinion also attempts to dis tinguish some of thecase s adoptingthe Santana approach on their f

acts. B ut these fa ctual distinctions are of limit ed re levanc e, g iven that the case s clea rly adopted the reasoningof Santana at the open door

way : rea soning ba sed only on the expectation of privac y

or lac k there of. 69 T h e S a n ta n a a p p r o a c h s h o u ld b e th e la w o f th is c ir c u it, f

o rth e r e a s o n s d is c u s s e d in det ai l abov e. 11 A s S a n ta n a is s o c le a r ly o n p o in t, th e m a jo r ity o p in io n a ls o a tte m p ts to di s t i ngui s h S a nt a na on i t s f a c t s . T he m a

j or i ty opi ni on a s s e r t s tha tM c C l i s h w a s not as expo se d t o p ub l i c vi ew as S ant ana w as ; thatS ant ana w as no tcl ea rl y i nsi de herMo re ov e r, many of the sefac tual di stinc tio ns c ann ot p lay any ro leun der t

heF ourt h 12 Am e ndme nt. Th eloc atio n o f S anta na ’s ho mein a

n urb an a re a c ann ot h avere du c e d h e r F ourt h Amendment prote ction: disti nctions amongkinds of homes would g ive less Four th Amendment prote c tio n to the“ ruine d tene me nt, ”in v iol atio n o f t hePitt qu ote . Thepre se nc eof

dr uga c tiv ity cannot berele vant: that would evisce ratethe Pay ton rule by

allowingofficers to enter when they have probable c ause of

criminal ac tivity , when Pay ton’s whole purposeis to require a war rant e ven when o ff

ic e rs havethestron g e st s us pic ion of c ri min a l a c tiv ity . F inally, th ema jority opinion say s that the “Court found significant”the fa ct that Santana retre ated into her home and held money

g iven to her in a

drugtransac tion. These facts, however, were releva nt to the hot pursuit portion of the opinion, not the arre st portion. See Santana, 427 U.S. at 40- 41, 96 S. Ct . at 2408-09. The majority

opinion also sugg ests that Santana might be distinguishable be causeof the route the of

fice rs took to ge t to McClis h’s front door . However, McClish has waive d any argument based on theofficers’ a pproac h, and therefore ca nnot contend that they

did not have a ri ght t o b ein t

he ir loc atio n o n th epo rc h. As thema jority op ini on no te s, “ [a]lt

ho ugh th ele g a lity of the off icer s’ entry

onto the porch w as argued in the district cour t, this i ssue was not raised on appeal and, in light of our holding today, does not nee d to be addressed.” Such an argument, even if raised, likely

would have be en unsucc essful. Ac cordingto the district court, the g ate that the of ficers opene d, and that had a “no tre spassing ” sign on it, was not e v e no nM c C l i s h ’ s p r o p e rty an d thu s w a s n o tl o c at e d

w i th i nth ec urt i l a g eo f

h i s h o m e . It there fo remos t li ke ly

wa s n ot p ro te c te d b y

theF ourt h Ame ndme nt. Se eOl iver v . Unit e d St ate s, 466 U.S. 170, 178, 104 S. C t. 1735, 1741 (1984) (“ [A] n individual may not leg itimately

demand privac y fo r ac tiv iti e s c on du c te d o ut o f doo rs in f ie lds , e xcept in th eare a

imm e diate ly surroundingthe home.”) ; United States v. Taylor, 458 F.3d 1201, 1208 ( 11th Cir. 2006) (“A perimeter fence a

round property

does not cre ate a

constitutionally

protec ted intere st in all the open fie lds on the proper

ty .”). Th e n, wh e n th eof

fi c e rs did c ro ss M c Clis h’ s c ur

til a g eto re a c h h is f

ro nt doo r, they

in all likelihood did not vi olate the F ourth Amendment be causethey took the path that any

visitor wo uld havetaken to kn oc k o n th efront do or . Se eTa ylor , 4 58 F .3 d at 12 04 (“ Th eF ourt h Amendment. . . is not impli cate d by entry upon private la

nd to knock on a c itiz en’s door for leg itimate police purposes unc onnecte d with a sea rch of the pre mises. . . . Absent express order s from the person in possession, an offic er ma y walk up the steps a

nd knock on the f

ront door of any man’s ‘c astle,’ with the hone st intent of askingquestions of the occupant there of.”) . In any event, be causeMcClish waived any relianc e on those facts, we ne ed not dec ide whether the

70 hom e ; tha tS a nt a na ’ s hom e w a s on a publ i c s tr e e t ; tha tS a nt a na w a s a l r e a dy on the thr e s hol d w he n pol i c e a r r i ve d; a nd tha tS a nt a na ’ s hom e w a s be i ng us e d f ordrug ac t i vi ty. B utS ant ana’ s hol di ng di d n otre l y on any of these fa ct s. E ven t he fa ct 12a

pp ro a c h to thedo or

vio late d th eF ourt

h Ame ndme nt. 71 tha tS a nt a na w a s ha l f

i ns i de a nd ha l f

out s i de the hom e w a s notr e l i e d upon i n the opi ni on. T ha tf

a c tw a s m e nt i one d i n the f a c t s s e c t i on of

the opi ni on, notthe r e a s oni ng s e c t i on. S e e S a nt a na , 427 U . S . a t40 n. 1, 96 S . C t . a t2408 n. 1. T he r e a s oni ng of

S a nt a na w a s br i e f

a nd t o the poi nt : “ S he w a s noti n a n a r e a w he r e s he had any expect at i on of pri vacy . ” I d. at42 , 96 S . C t . at24 09 . T he ca se re l i ed si m p l y o n th e ab sen ce o f an ex p ect at i o n o f p ri v acy. S i m i l ar l y, M cC l i sh had n o exp ec t at i on of pri vacy i n t he i m m edi at e doo rw ay a r e a a f te rh e v o lu n ta r ily o p e n e d th e d o o r . I n m y ju d g m e n t, th e S a n ta n a ru le co n tro l s th e i n st an tcase. Itco n t ai n s a h o l d i n g th ati s d i rect l y o n p o i n t , i n co n trast t o t he di ct a abo ut“ thres ho l d” i n P ay t on . Ital l ow s a w arra nt l es s a rr es ton l y w hen th e s u s p e c t h a s v o lu n ta r ily r e lin q u is h e d th e p r iv a c y p r o te c te d b y P a y to n , a n d is thus c ons i s t e ntw i th P a y t on’ s pr i va c y - pr ot e c t i on r a t i ona l e . I ti s m or e c ons i s t e nt w i th F our th A m e ndm e ntl a w i n ge ne r a l , a s i tdoe s notc r e a t e a br i ght - l i ne rul e , or rel y o n th e p ro p erty l aw co n cep to f th e p l an e o f th e d o o r. F i n al l y, i tach i ev es a w orkabl e bal ance betw ee n t he pu bl i c a nd pri vat e i nt er es t s a tst ake. I s ub m i tthat the of f i c e r s di d notvi ol a t e M c C l i s h’ s F our th A m e ndm e ntr i ght s by r e a c hi ng thr ough the pl a ne of

the vol unt a r i l y ope ne d door . I the r e f or e r e s pe c t f

ul l y di s s e nt f r om tha tpor t i on of

the opi ni on hol di ng tha tthe of f i c e r s vi ol a t e d the C ons t i tut i on.