806 (1986) (per curiam), the district cannot be held liable. For the reasons stated, the judgment of the district court is Affirmed. 1 . The parties do not tell us whether Pasiew-icz’s job suspension was lifted after his acquittal, but we would assume so. 2 . Pasiewicz claims that neither arresting officer had personal knowledge of the information providing probable cause. But both officers read Shannon's report. Sandahl was also present at the September 1 meeting when Peterson claimed that Pasiewicz was the man she had seen. Henning learned that the two women were close enough on August 30 to have clear N.D.Ill.1998) (finding no constitutional violation where officer lacked jurisdiction to stop plaintiff and issue a citation), with Ross v. Neff, 905 F.2d 1349, 1353-54 (10th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>), and United States v. Foster, 566 F.Supp.
holding that absent exigent circumstances an arrest within the home can only be effectuated with a warrant probable cause is insufficient holding that absent consent or exigent circumstances law enforcement officers cannot legally search for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party without first obtaining a search warrant holding that an arrest made outside an officers jurisdiction absent exigent circumstances violates the fourth amendment holding that absent exigent circumstances the fourth amendment prohibits warrantless nonconsensual entry into a suspects home in order to make a felony arrest  notwithstanding the existence of probable cause to arrest holding that an arrest made by an officer outside his jurisdiction does not violate the fourth amendment