First Circuit
Morse v. Cloutier, 869 F.3d 16, 27-30 (1st Cir. 2017) (stating that “clearly established law [gave] reasonable police officers fair and clear warning that using force to enter the plaintiffs’ home to effectuate Morse’s arrest — without either a warrant or a reasonable basis for believing that exigent circumstances existed — would violate his Fourth Amendment rights”).
Sixth Circuit
Hicks v. Scott, 958 F.3d 421, 433-34 (6th Cir. 2020) (“Although the defendants contend that the unlocked door divested Quandavier of any reasonable expectation of privacy, intervening acts unknown to the sole user of an area cannot independently nullify an otherwise justified expectation of privacy. . . . Because, as already discussed, there is evidence that the exterior side door of 1751 Chase Avenue opened into the interior of Quandavier’s apartment and not a common hallway, we find that Quandavier’s right to be free from the defendants’ warrantless entry was clearly established.”).
Eighth Circuit
Elgersma v. City of Saint Paul, 21-cv-1792 (KMM/DJF), at *7 (D. Minn. Jan. 23, 2023) (“The Duncan, Mitchell, and Council trio of cases clearly establish that warrantless arrests made in the absence of consent or exigent circumstances violate the Fourth Amendment when police officers use coercion or deception to get a suspect to answer their door.”).
Gerling v. City of Hermann, 2 F.4th 737, 743 (8th Cir. 2021) (“On these assumed facts, it was clearly established at the time of the incident that Waite could not reach into Gerling’s home to arrest him.”).
Rozycki v. City of Champlin, CV 15-589 (JRT/FLN), 2016 WL 7493619, at *9 (D. Minn. Dec. 30, 2016) (“It is clearly established that warrantless entry into the home or curtilage is presumptively unreasonable absent consent.”).
Ellison v. Lesher, 796 F.3d 910, 915 (8th Cir. 2015) (“The right to be secure in a residence against a warrantless entry was clearly established by Payton and other decisions as of December 2010.”).
Mitchell v. Shearrer, 729 F.3d 1070, 1076 (8th Cir. 2013) (“It has long been established that warrantless searches and seizures inside a home are presumptively unreasonable. . . . Duncan made clear that in the absence of exigent circumstances, an officer cannot reach over the threshold and into a person’s home to forcibly effectuate a warrantless arrest. . . . Accordingly, a reasonable officer would have known that at the time Mitchell tried to close the door, he stood within his home and thus could not be pulled therefrom and placed under arrest in the absence of exigent circumstances.”).
Der v. Connolly, 825 F. Supp. 2d 991, 997 (D. Minn. 2010) (“If Sandra’s description of Connolly’s behavior is true, Connolly’s entry into the home plainly violated the Fourth Amendment and any reasonable officer would have known as much.”).
Smith v. Kansas City, Missouri Police Dept., 586 F.3d 576, 581 (8th Cir. 2009) (“At the time of the incident, a reasonable officer understood that it was unlawful to enter a home without a warrant, absent consent or exigent circumstances.”).
Thompson v. Anoka-Hennepin E. Metro Narcotics, 673 F. Supp. 2d 805, 813 (D. Minn. 2009) (“There is no dispute that the individual officers entered Plaintiffs’ house and handcuffed and restrained Plaintiffs without a warrant. A warrantless search of an individual’s house violates the Fourth Amendment unless it is supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances. . . . In addition, absent exigent circumstances, an arrest warrant is required to arrest a suspect in his or her home.”).
Guite v. Wright, 147 F.3d 747, 750 (8th Cir. 1998) (“It is clearly established that the Fourth Amendment prohibits a warrantless entry into a suspect’s home to make a routine felony arrest absent consent or exigent circumstances.”).
Rogers v. Carter, 133 F.3d 1114, 1118 (8th Cir. 1998) (stating that “under the Fourth Amendment, Bobby Carter’s arrest of David Rogers in Janice Rogers’ apartment is treated in the same manner as if it had occurred in David Rogers’ own home”).
Duncan v. Storie, 869 F.2d 1100, 1102 (8th Cir. 1989) (stating that “a warrantless arrest that occurs inside an individual’s home is unconstitutional unless the officers demonstrate the existence of probable cause and exigent circumstances,” that “an individual who is compelled to stand in a doorway cannot be lawfully arrested without the existence of probable cause and exigent circumstances,” the “same standard applies when officers deceive an individual in order to bring him to the door,” and that is is “unwise to become preoccupied with the exact location of the individual in relation to the doorway”).
Patzner v. Burkett, 779 F.2d 1363, 1370 (8th Cir. 1985) (“It should have been obvious that if the home is to be protected against warrantless arrests for felonies, as Payton established, the home should be even more sacrosanct from invasion for warrantless arrests for minor crimes, requiring a far greater showing of exigency than that alleged here.”).