In the case, Bailey v. United States, the Supreme Court held that police may NOT detain someone incident to the search of a residence 
when that person is over a mile away from the scene. Further, the traditional rule has been that police may seize anyone incident to the search of a home who is in the home or near the home. This rule is derived from a Michigan case, Michigan v. Summers, which held that police were justified in seizing an individual who was walking down the front stairs of a home, where a search was being conducted.
The more recent Bailey case involved an individual who was seized by police a mile away from the apartment that was being searched. Thereafter, he was seized while the search was being performed. The Summers opinion gave three reasons why police may seize someone incident to a search. These include: (1) officer safety, (2) facilitating the completion of the search, and (3) preventing flight. However, the most recent case held that those justifications do not hold the same sway if the subject is not in the immediate vicinity.
Therefore, this means that police officers may seize someone incident to a lawful search of a residence if that person is either in the residence being searched or within the immediate vicinity of the area being searched. The immediate vicinity may be the source of dispute in later cases; however, in this case, it is certain to include the front steps of a home. Further, it is certain that the area within a close proximity to the home will be included.
