Was the entry into the home to arrest the misdemeanant clearly established as unconstitutional?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This $1983 qualified immunity case involves the legality of entry into a residence by Petitioner Swindell, a Florida Sheriff’s Deputy, to arrest Respondent Bailey. Bailey committed a misdemeanor in Swindell’s presence, on the porch to the home, and Swindell immediately followed Bailey into the home to arrest him. The district court granted Swindell summary judgment on Bailey’s §1983 claim of unlawful arrest, but in Bailey v. Swindell, 940 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2019) (‘Bailey I’), the Eleventh Circuit reversed and held that the entry might have been unconstitutional under Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980), if the arrest was initiated while Bailey was inside the home. A jury subsequently rendered a general verdict for Bailey but determined that the arrest was initiated outside the home. The district court thus granted judgment to Swindell based on qualified immunity, citing United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1976) and Lange v. California, 594 U.S. ___, 141 S.Ct. 2011 (2021). In Bailey v. Swindell, 89 F.4th 1324 (11th Cir. 2024) (“Bailey IT”), however, the Eleventh Circuit rejected the conclusion that Bailey was outside the home when the arrest was initiated and determined that Swindell’s entry into the home to complete the arrest of Bailey was a violation of clearly established law under Payton. Id., pp. 1330-31. Against this backdrop, the instant matter presents the following questions for the Court’s review: 1. Was it clearly established in 2014 that a law enforcement officer violates the Fourth Amendment when he witnesses a person commit u a misdemeanor offense in public view and immediately pursues the fleeing misdemeanant into a home to arrest that person, but without exigency apart from the pursuit? 2. Where ajury has determined that a misdemeanor arrest was supported by probable cause and was initiated outside of a residence, is the deputy effectuating the arrest entitled to qualified immunity under the Fourth Amendment where he instantaneously follows the arrestee into a home to complete the arrest? 3. Where acircuit court of appeals denies qualified immunity to a deputy sheriff for entry into a home to make an arrest based on the specific question of where the arrest was initiated — inside or outside —and a jury subsequently determines that the arrest was initiated outside, may the circuit court of appeals reject that finding of fact and substitute its own finding that the arrest was initiated inside the home so as to once again deny the deputy qualified immunity?