‘unquestioned command’ of a dwelling may ... exceed the scope of the authority implicitly granted them by their warrant when they permit unauthorized invasions of privacy by third parties who have no connection to the search warrant or the officers’ purposes for being on the premises.” Bills v. Aseltine, 958 F.2d 697, 704 (6th Cir.1992) [hereinafter Bills 11 The Bills I court concluded: The ava d.2d 554 (1995); United States v. Sanusi, 813 F.Supp. 149, 160-61 (E.D.N.Y.1992) (“In viting private citizens whose presence is not necessary to the execution of the warrant to join the search party is a failure of public trust — one that indicates a disregard of the important values at stake when the government enters a person’s home.”). But see Parker v. Boyer, 93 F.3d 445, 447 (8th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Stack alleges that Killian arranged for the
holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises holding that it is a violation of the fourth amendment for police to bring members of the media or other third parties into a home during the execution of a warrant when the presence of third parties in the home was not in aid of the execution of the warrant holding that it is not selfevident that the police offend general fourthamendment principles when they allow members of the news media to enter someones house during the execution of a search warrant and because ayeni and buonocore only represent a trend in the law it was not clearly established at the time of the search that the defendants violated constitutional rights 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 holding consent involuntary when police told defendants grandmother they had a search warrant and she allowed them to enter and search