officers could avoid illegal “entry” into a home simply by remaining outside the doorway and controlling the movements of suspects within through the use of weapons that greatly extend the “reach” of the arresting officer. United States v. Morgan, 743 F.2d at 1166 (quoting United States v. Johnson, 626 F.2d 753, 757 (9th Cir.1980)). Applying the principle idea taken from United States v. Johnson, the Sixth Circuit in United States v. Morgan determined that warrantless control of a suspect inside his own home constitutes a seizure. See id. The Tenth Circuit has similarly accepted the notion that “[ojpening the door to one’s home is not voluntary if ordered to do so under color of authority.” United States v. Reeves, 524 F.3d at 1167. See United States v. Flowers, 336 F.3d at 1226 (<HOLDING>). In his affidavit, Matthew Smith presents a
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 officers order to roll down window or open door creates a temporary seizure holding that police orders to openthe door which led to an arrest inside the home represented an unconstitutional seizure holding that no search occurred when police officers entered an open business holding that if a residents decision to open his door to police is made involuntarily a seizure within his home has occurred