Id. Second, the area searched must be one “from which an attack could be immediately launched,” and thus in any event must be capable of concealing at least one person. Id. Both of these conditions are satisfied here. Although the exact location of Lemus’s arrest was disputed in the district court, the district court found that he was apprehended shortly after he had “stepped into the apartment breaking the threshold of the sliding glass door.” This finding was not clearly in error. Even taking Lemus’s account of the events as authoritative, it is clear that at most Lemus was only partially outside the living room when he was arrested. The living room thus “immediately adjoined” the area where Lemus was arrested. Cf. Peals v. Terre Haute Police Dep’t, 535 F.3d 621, 628 (7th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Charles, 469 F.3d 402,
holding that plaintiffs allegations that police officers moved into plaintiffs unoccupied house without their consent broke the new locks that the plaintiffs put on their house filed unsupported charges against the plaintiffs perjured themselves in testifying against the plaintiffs and threatened physical violence against them did not sufficiently shock the conscience so as to violate substantive due process holding that it was not a constitutional violation under buie for a police officer to enter the plaintiffs house after the plaintiffs arrest in the attached garage recognizing affirmative duty of a police officer to prevent the violation of constitutional rights by another officer holding that discharge of a police officer for the choice to enter into a relationship with the wife of his superior officer on the force was rational holding that the evidence was sufficient to preclude inference where he tried to enter the house drunk and was staying at the neighboring house