building under the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, in perfecting the seizure of Defendant, the officers did not enter a residence or apartment unit. Because the Court decides the matter on this ground, there is no need to examine whether the officers could lawfully enter the building to execute the arrest warrants on Luna and Romero under Payton v. New York. See United States v. Veal, 453 F.3d 164, 167 (3d Cir.2006) (“Payton requires that officers have ‘a reasonable belief the arrestee (1) lived in the residence, and (2) is within the residence at the time of entry.’ ”) (quoting United States v. Gay, 240 F.3d 1222, 1226 (10th Cir.2001)) (emphasis added). Nor must the Court perform an analysis under Steagald v. United States. See 451 U.S. 204, 213-214, 101 S.Ct. 1642, 68 L.Ed.2d 38 (1981) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). In sum, Defendant’s motion
holding that challenges to an arrest warrant are not jurisdictional 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 warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant holding that in the absence of consent or exigent circumstances a law enforcement officer must procure a search warrant before searehing for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party 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