Defendant was \u201carrested\u201d in his home by officers at his window with guns drawn who ordered him to the door to come out. United States v. Burch, 838 F. Supp. 2d 1369 (S.D. Ga. 2011), aff’d, 466 Fed. Appx. 773 (11th Cir. 2012):<\/p>\n
That the officers, at least according to their testimony, never physically entered the trailer to conduct the arrest does not change the fact that an arrest took place inside the home. Although it does not appear that the Eleventh Circuit has directly addressed this issue, \u201cevery court that has considered the issue \u2026 has concluded that if the police force a person out of his house to arrest him, the arrest is deemed to have taken place inside his home, and the Payton warrant requirement applies.\u201d Fisher v. City of San Jose<\/a>, 509 F.3d 952, 959 (9th Cir. 2007). In analyzing whether the warrant requirement applies, \u201cit is the location of the arrested person, and not the arresting agents, that determines whether an arrest occurs within a home.\u201d Sharrar v. Felsing<\/a>, 128 F.3d 810, 819 (3d Cir. 1997), rev\u2019d on other grounds, 499 F.3d 199 (3d Cir. 2007) (holding that arrest took place inside home even though officers did not physically enter residence to place suspect in custody); …\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Defendant\u2019s claim that defense counsel was ineffective for not challenging racial profiling in his stop falls short because it is based on speculation and conjecture. Brooks v. United States, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23488 (W.D. N.C. February 22, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading