rather than the law as it was read to the jury,” even if the party did not object to the jury instructions. Pincay v. Andrews, 238 F.3d 1106, 1109 n. 4 (9th Cir.2001) (citing Air-Sea Forwarders, Inc. v. Air Asia Co., 880 F.2d 176, 181-83 (9th Cir.1989)). III A In order to frame the precise issue before us, we begin by noting several important legal issues about which the parties are in agreement. First, the police concede that even though Fisher was technically taken into custody outside his apartment, he was, for legal purposes, seized inside his home, and, as such, the burden is on the police to show either that they obtained a warrant or that some exception to the warrant requirement excused officers from getting one. See United States v. Al-Azzawy, 784 F.2d 890, 893 (9th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Johnson, 626 F.2d 753, 757
holding that a seizure as a violation of the fourth amendment when police surrounded an individuals house for three hours planning an arrest and ordering the individual out of his home under drawn firearms believing he was a suspect in a bank robbery holding that defendant was arrested  when the police officer took physical custody of him by grabbing his arm and returned him to the hotel for detention there holding that the suspect was effectively arrested when police surrounded his trailer with their weapons drawn and ordered him through a bullhorn to leave the trailer and drop to his knees holding that long authorizes protective search of vehicle for weapons during terry stop even when suspect is outside vehicle and effectively under police control 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