Part I
The "physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed." United States v. United States Dist. Court, 407 U.S. 297, 3131972). Accordingly, it is well established that "searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable," Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586 (1980), and so "prohibited by the Fourth Amendment, absent probable cause and exigent circumstances." Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 749 (1984). This is a constitutional right that should be protected by your attorney in any criminal defense case.
As noted in Welsh: Before agents of the government may invade the sanctity of the home, the burden is on the government to demonstrate exigent circumstances that overcome the presumption of unreasonableness that attaches to all warrantless home entries. When the government's interest is only to arrest for a minor offense, that presumption of unreasonableness is difficult to rebut, and the government usually should be allowed to make such arrests only with a warrant issued upon probable cause by a neutral and detached magistrate. 466 U.S. at 750.
In other words, the Court assumes that entry without a warrant is barred, and the burden is on the state to prove that the police had an urgency reason that prevented the ability to first obtain a warrant. If they cannot, any type of evidence obtained as a result of that entry will not be permitted to be relied upon at trial (fruit of the poisonous tree).
For example, in State v. Holland, 328 N.J.Super. 1 (App. Div. 2000), the officers conducted a warrantless search of a residence based upon the smell of burning marijuana emanating from the home. The average person would assume that the police could use that scent to generate probable cause. Probable cause should justify a warrant, not warrantless entry or entry without consent. If the suspect voluntarily permitted the police in, or if the suspect voluntarily left the home, that is a different legal situation. In this instance, relying upon several rulings of the United States Supreme Court which stress the sanctity of a person's home, the Holland Court found that there was probable cause to believe someone possessed marijuana, which is a disorderly persons offense, but the minor offense did not generate the exigent circumstances which would justify a warrantless search or arrest in the suspect's home. 328 N.J.Super. at 7. In that type of situation, anything the police found or were told when they entered the home without consent that would incriminate a suspect is barred.
