conviction on all counts. 1 . On October 9, 2007, we abated this appeal pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Virginia v. Moore,-U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 1598, 170 L.Ed.2d 559 (2008). Because that case has now been decided, we consider Mr. Gonzales’s Fourth Amendment argument. 2 . Mr. Gonzales argues that the traffic stop in the instant case is analogous to a warrantless arrest. In Ross v. Neff, 905 F.2d 1349 (10th Cir.1990), we held that a “warrantless arrest executed outside of the arresting officer’s jurisdiction is analogous to a warrantless arrest without probable cause” and is therefore "presumptively unreasonable” in the absence of exigent circumstances. Id. at 1354. We subsequently declined to extend this holding to the context of warranted searches. See Green, 178 F.3d at 1106 (<HOLDING>). We note, first, that the traffic stop in this
holding that an arrest made by an officer outside his jurisdiction does not violate the fourth amendment holding that when acting pursuant to a valid warrant the police did not violate the fourth amendment by acting outside their jurisdiction in violation of state law holding that the eleventh amendment protects both states and state officials acting in their official capacity from suits brought pursuant to 42 usc  1983 recognizing cause of action for damages against federal agents acting under their authority who allegedly violated plaintiffs fourth amendment rights holding that the fourth amendment exclusionary rule should not bar the use of evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faith and with reasonable reliance on a facially valid search warrant