In a 1980 case law, Payton v. New York, an arrest warrant allows an officer to enter a home to effect an arrest as long as there is reason to believe
the suspect is in the particular home (Hall, 2014). Officers can also legally search the home in any space that a person could potentially be in (Hall, 2014). Searching under a bed or in a closet would be a legal search, whereas looking in a medicine cabinet on a bathroom wall would not.
Similar to the previous scenario, the officer is made aware of a robbery by the victim. During the course of the officer’s investigation, it is learned that the suspect is at his home. Because the victim grew up with the suspect, he could probably provide much more intimate details about the suspect and his home. He may know whether the suspect keeps weapons in the house and if he or she is known to be hostile towards law enforcement. In this case, getting a warrant is the right choice, which will have a judge or magistrate satisfy the probable cause requirement (Hall, 2014). If the scenario were changed, and the suspect fled in the officers presence to his or her home, the officer would not need to obtain a warrant under the doctrine of hot pursuit (Hall, 2014). However, because its reasonably known the suspect is home, and there is no immediate threat, getting a warrant will provide better protections for the officer’s case if scrutinized by a defense attorney (Hall, 2014). Officer’s should always use common sense and weigh the police role of crime detection and prevention and compare that to a person’s right from unreasonable searches and seizures (Hall, 2014).
Reference:
Hall, D. E. (2014). Criminal Law and Procedure. Retrieved from https://www.betheluniversityonline.net/.