is unavoidable.” Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S.Ct. at 821 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Furthermore, the first prong’s purpose of furthering the development of constitutional law might not be meaningfully advanced in cases where the determination whether a right was violated is so fact bound that it is unlikely to provide guidance in future cases. See id. at 812. RELEVANT LAW REGARDING SEARCH AND SEIZURE The Fourth Amendment protects a person’s right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. The hallmark of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness. “It is a basic principle of Fourth Amendment law that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.” Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586, 100 S.Ct. 137 7 (10th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). In United States v. Reeves, police officers
holding that if a residents decision to open his door to police is made involuntarily a seizure within his home has occurred holding that an unconstitutional seizure occurred when police officers discovered that a suspect illegally sold alcohol from his home and ordered him to open the door involuntarily to be arrested inside his home holding that police executed an illegal arrest when they took a teenage suspect from his home and brought him in handcuffs to the police station for questioning holding that no search occurred when police officers entered an open business holding that police orders to openthe door which led to an arrest inside the home represented an unconstitutional seizure