never physically entered the trailer to conduct the arrest does not change the fact that an arrest took place inside the home. Although it does not appear that the Eleventh Circuit has directly addressed this issue, “every court that has considered the issue ... has concluded that if the police force a person out of his house to arrest him, the arrest is deemed to have taken place inside his home, and the Payton warrant requirement applies.” Fisher v. City of San Jose, 509 F.3d 952, 959 (9th Cir.2007). In analyzing whether the warrant requirement applies, “it is the location of the arrested person, and not the arresting agents, that determines whether an arrest occurs within a home.” Sharrar v. Felsing, 128 F.3d 810, 819 (3d Cir.1997), rev’d on other grounds, 499 F.3d 199 (3d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Maez, 872 F.2d
holding that the court did not err in concluding that a defendant was not in custody where he made statements to law enforcement officers in his own home was not physically restrained during the conversation never manifested an intent to terminate the interaction and the officers never indicated to the defendant that they had probable cause to arrest him holding the buie prong 1 exception is not available where the arrest took place just outside the home  holding that arrest took place inside home even though officers did not physically enter residence to place suspect in custody holding that arrest warrant permits police to enter residence of person named therein to make arrest holding that defendant was not in custody during search of his residence