to have been cleared before the arrest violates the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., Murray v. City of Chicago, 634 F.2d 365, 366 (7th Cir.1980) (ten weeks after court quashed and recalled a warrant for appellant’s arrest, police arrested her on the basis of the warrant; court found it “clear that appellant sustained a violation of constitutional rights by being arrested and detained pursuant to an invalid warrant”); Commonwealth v. Hecox, 35 Mass.App.Ct. 277, 619 N.E.2d 339, 340-44 & n. 2 (1993) (where officer mistakenly believed that a warrant was outstanding for defendant’s arrest, but in fact a warrant either never had issued or had been subsequently cleared, arrest pursuant to that warrant violated Fourth Amendment); see also McMurry v. Sheahan, 927 F.Supp. 1082, 1088 (N.D.Ill.1996) (<HOLDING>). If it was clearly established that the Fourth
holding that it was clearly established for  1983 purposes that an arrest founded upon a recalled warrant violates the fourth amendment holding that an arrest made outside an officers jurisdiction absent exigent circumstances violates the fourth amendment holding that false arrest supports a claim against state police under  1983 because it violates the fourth amendment holding that the doorway of the home is a public place for purposes of the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment holding allegation that false affidavit was basis for arrest warrant is sufficient to state  1983 fourth amendment claim against affiant officer