Fourth-Amendment-in-presence-requirement

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Under the Fourth Amendment’s in-presence requirement, a police officer who conducts a warrantless arrest on a person accused of a misdemeanor, or lesser offense, must be present and personally visual to the alleged crime to have the probable cause necessary to effectuate a lawful seizure. 2. Heck v. Humphrey does not bar § 1983 claims for false arrest, false imprisonment or excessive bail, which are unrelated to an outstanding conviction and does not preclude malicious prosecution claims arising from charges that terminated favorably, within the context of a mixed verdict. 3. It is well-established that police officers who warrantlessly enter into a private buildingstructure, in the absence of consent or exigency, violate the Fourth Amendment and do not enjoy qualified immunity.! ' Subsidiary to all (3) questions presented is Petitioner’s sharp contention that cognizable § 1983 claims were stated in his Amended Complaint and error was committed by dismissing his Fourth and Eighth Amendment claims on Rule 12 (b) (6) review.