Anthony Bandiero, Attorney and Senior Legal Instructor, Blue to Gold Law Enforcement Training

A roadside chat on surround and call-outs. An officer in California asks about United States v. Nora, where officers ordered an armed man out of his house and the court treated it as an in-home arrest. This was recorded in December 2025, before the Supreme Court decided Case v. Montana, which Anthony mentions near the end as still pending.

When can we order somebody out of their home in order to arrest them?

This question is a very simple question, straightforward, from an officer in California. He’s referencing a case called U.S. v. Nora, and he’s saying, hey, when can we call somebody out of their home?

What happened in United States v. Nora?

What happened in Nora is that an officer, maybe a couple officers, I think in LA, were driving on the street. They’re probably gang officers. They saw Nora and two of his buddies. They were in front of their house chit chatting on the sidewalk. The officers decide to go make a consensual encounter. They got out of their car. They start talking to these three men.

After a minute or so, Nora turns around and starts walking towards his front door. He enters his curtilage, and that’s not really a factor in the case, but he enters his curtilage, and while the officers look at him, they see that he’s holding a firearm. So this whole time that they were talking to these guys, and before they arrived, Nora was holding a firearm. Probably showing it off, whatever. Maybe selling it, maybe buying it.

So that was a crime, because he had that firearm in a public place, and there was probable cause that it was a loaded firearm. How do we know it’s loaded? I don’t know. But the court did say there was probable cause for carrying a firearm loaded in public. All right, I’m fine with that. By the way, under those conditions, it’s more likely than not that it is loaded. The fact he’s carrying it, it’s in his hand, and so forth.

So they then surround and call out Nora. It takes him like 30 minutes to come out. They order him out. He comes out with his hands up. Then search incident to arrest. I think he actually had marijuana on him, and admitted that there was more drugs in the house.

Is ordering someone out of their house an in-home arrest under Payton?

But regardless, there were some evidentiary issues in that case that Nora wanted to suppress. And his argument was, hey, look, when you ordered me out of my house and I submitted to that show of authority, that was an in-home arrest that violates Payton. Because in Payton, that 1980s case, you cannot enter a home to effectuate a probable cause arrest, even for a serious crime. So you did this. You didn’t go to my house and grab me off the couch, but what you did is you ordered me out of my house. I submitted to that, and therefore you’re responsible for that. You own that. That’s a Fourth Amendment seizure. That’s not consensual, and you have to justify it.

And the court agreed. They held that under those circumstances, because he submitted to that arrest, that show of authority, he came out of his house. He didn’t come out voluntarily. That was similar to Payton, and it was a violation. So now we have a fruit of the poisonous tree issue.

When can you order someone out of their home?

So when can you do it? You can do it with exigency. What is exigency? Exigency is when something bad may happen in the meantime. In other words, if you break off and go get a warrant, something in those few hours that it takes to get a warrant in most places, some places like Utah is like 15 minutes, but something bad could happen.

Well, what bad could happen? How about he’s armed and dangerous, and you give him time to fortify his position and so forth. How about destruction of evidence? How about there’s evidence that he’s going to escape? He has a long history of escaping, or you see him running out the back door. What about other people in the house, and he’s a danger to them? So what we need here is some kind of something bad.

How much proof of exigency do you need?

Now, that something bad does not have to be absolute certainty. Oh my God, I know something bad’s going to happen. It’s a level of proof probably similar to reason. We’re going to find out from the U.S. Supreme Court next year what that level of proof is. That is a case called Case v. Montana, and they’re going to decide what level of proof we need for exigency. But I don’t think it’s going to be probable cause. I think it’s going to be closer to, like, reason to believe that something bad could happen. But regardless, that’s what we need. We need some kind of exigency.

What is containment, and can you wait in the backyard?

If we do not have it, then go to containment. Containment is when you’re just basically sitting outside the perimeter of the home. You can wait there. It’s a public place. You don’t have to leave. I would turn off the red and blues. Don’t make the person feel like they have to come out. Just one extra thing to let the courts know you know the rules.

I don’t think you can be in the backyard as a matter of routine. I think you need additional exigency for that. Cops do it all the time. They’ll go into the backyard just in case he escapes. Well, show me the case that says that without exigency you can enter a person’s backyard. I don’t have it. Do you? So use some good judgment there.

But at the end of the day, to answer my friend’s question, in California, you need exigency.

The short version

  • In Nora, officers surrounded the house and ordered an armed man out. He submitted to that show of authority, and the court treated it like a Payton in-home arrest. Fruit of the poisonous tree.
  • You can order someone out with exigency. Exigency is when something bad may happen in the meantime: armed and dangerous, destruction of evidence, escape, danger to other people in the house.
  • That something bad does not have to be absolute certainty. I don’t think it’s going to be probable cause. I think it’s going to be closer to reason to believe.
  • No exigency? Go to containment. Sit outside the perimeter. It’s a public place. I would turn off the red and blues.
  • I don’t think you can be in the backyard as a matter of routine. I think you need additional exigency for that.

Until next time, my friends, stay safe and make good case law.

Related from Blue to Gold

This article is a lightly edited transcript of a Blue to Gold roadside chat and is for training purposes only. It is not legal advice. Check your own state law and your prosecutor before acting. Source video: EP#964