Payton vs New York

In the cases, New York trial Judge held that the evidence seized upon these entries could not be suppressed, while the honored judge held that the New York Statutes authorized these entries without warrants. However, the New York Court of Appeals treated both these as cases of routine arrests that allowed ample time to obtain an arrest warrant. Hence, this court ultimately affirmed the convictions of both the appellants, as being a single opinion of the court……………..(3)
A non-consensual entry without any warrant by a police person into a residence of any suspect with the intention of making a felony arrest is not permitted under the fourth amendment, as made applicable to the states by the fourteenth amendment. These have been described as summarized below.
The fourth amendment has recognized the chief evil of unauthorized entry. Hence, the wordings of this amendment are directed against this evil practice only. It has held the sanctity of the home being supreme while dealing with such arrests without any exigent circumstances. Although there may be sufficient cause for the felony arrest to be done in the residence itself, the amendment has drawn a firm line in making such arrests in the absence of exigent circumstances.
The court has cited that the reasons for making arrests at a public place cannot apply to the invasion of a private home without any warrant. (Case No.423 US 411, United States vs. Watson) has been cited as the public place arrest reference. To make the rules clear with regard to common laws for arrests at public or private places, the fourth amendment laid out the requirement of a warrant for making the felony arrest at the private residence. Although many of the states have permitted these arrests without any exigent circumstance, a declining trend to the same is evident now. Comparing the cases with that of Watson, there are no statute references to indicate the determination of the congress for terming the warrant-less entry as “reasonable”.