This is not the proper role for a panel of this court. Moreover, by authorizing this tactic, this opinion sets a troublesome precedent. While I recognize that, under this new precedent, the possibility now exists that the analysis that follows might be resurrected by a future panel — i.e., some future panel could employ the majority’s device and reconsider the decisions in this case (regarding the entry, the ruse, or the remedy), find that it prefers my view of these issues, and deem the majority’s purported holdings unnecessary to the outcome and, hence, dicta — I take no comfort in such a possibilit abeling its reasoning and analysis “dicta” and treating its holding with less regard than it treats the since-overruled opinion of United States v. Jones, 641 F.2d 425, 428 (6th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). That is, the majority rejects Pruitt’s
holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant holding invalid warrant did not create probable cause for arrest holding that an arrest warrant can authorize entry into a dwelling only where the officials executing the warrant have reasonable or probable cause to believe the person named in the warrant is within holding that an arrest warrant  without a search warrant  does not permit law enforcement authorities to enter a third partys home to legally search for the subject of the arrest warrant holding that arrest warrant can support entry into suspects residence when there is reason to believe the suspect is within