With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was not clearly established and did not provide the Deputies with "fair warning” that their conduct violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court reasoned "that without the benefit of McClish v. Nugent, 483 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir.2007), which was decided ... almost one year after the incident, the deputies could not have known whether entering the garage without a warrant was clearly a violation of the Coffins’ constitutional rights.” Coffin v. Brandau, No. 07-cv-835-T-26TBM, 2008 WL 2950117, at *7 (M.D.Fla. July 31, 2008). McClish addressed the question of whether a person who voluntarily opens his front door could be removed from his home and arrested outside the home’s threshold in light of Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 589-90, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 1381-82, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980) (<HOLDING>) and United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 96

A: holding that an arrest made outside an officers jurisdiction absent exigent circumstances violates the fourth amendment
B: holding that absent consent or exigent circumstances law enforcement officers cannot legally search for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party without first obtaining a search warrant
C: holding that in die absence of exigent circumstances the mere existence of probable cause does not justify a nonconsensual entry by police into a home without an arrest or search warrant
D: holding that absent exigent circumstances an arrest within the home can only be effectuated with a warrant probable cause is insufficient
D.