PLEASE ONLY USE THE REFERENCE I HAVE PROVIDED NOTHING ELSE

Issue: What overarching issue was the court addressing or resolving (one questions not a paragraph just one sentence encapsulating)

Facts: What are the facts that the court described and cared about?

facts section should only include the actual facts of the case.

Rule of Law:What rule please mention the statue, case, legal principle mentioned in the images, did the court apply

*rule of law segment should only include the actual statutes, constitutional amendments or cases the Court applies the facts

Application- how did the court apply the rule to the facts?

*application section should be how the Court applied the facts to the law

Conclusion: what result did the court reach and WHY?

PAYTON v. NEW YORK

Mr. Justice STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court. These appeals challenge the constitutionally of New York statues that authorize police officers to enter a private residence without a warrant and with force, if necessary, to make a routine felony arrest.

On January 14, 1970, after two days of intensive investigation, New York detectives had assembled evidence sufficient to establish probable cause to believe that Theodore Payton had murdered the manager of a gas station tow days earlier. At about 7:30 a.m. on January 15 six officers went to Payton's apartment in the Bronx intending to arrest him. They had not obtained a warrant. Although light and music emanated from the apartment, there was no response to their knock on the metal door. The summoned emergency assistance and, about 30 minutes later, used crowbars to break open the door and enter the apartment. No one was there. In plain view, however, was a 30 caliber shell casing that was seized and later admitted into evidence at Payton's murder trial.

In due course Payton surrendered to the police, was indicted for murder, and moved to suppress the evidence taken from his apartment. The trial judge held that the warrantless and forcible entry was authorized by the New York Code of Criminal Procedure, and that the evidence in plain view was properly seized... The Appellate Division, First Department, summarily affirmed.

*Please ignore the Boyd v. United States 116 U.S. 616 630 *1886 & Indeed, as Mr. JUSTICE POWELL noted in his concurrence in United States v. Watson

It is thus perfectly clear that the evil the Amendment was designed to prevent was broader than the abuse of a general warrant. Unreasonable searches or seizures conducted without any warrant at all are condemned by the plain language of the Welcome to t first clause of the Amendment. Almost a century ago the Court stated in resound- ing terms that the principles reflected in the Amendment "reached farther than the Check out the new look concrete form" of the specific cases that gave it birth, and "apply to all invasions on the part of the government and its employees of the sanctity of a man's home and the Got it privacies of life." Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630 (1886). Without pausing to consider whether that broad language may require some qualification, it is sufficient to note that the warrantless arrest of a person is a species of seizure required by the Amendment to be reasonable. Indeed, as MR. JUSTICE POWELL noted in his concurrence in United States v. Watson the arrest of a person is "quintessentially a seizure." The simple language of the Amendment applies equally to seizures of persons and Investigat to seizures of property. Our analysis in this case may therefore properly commence with rules that have been well established in Fourth Amendment litigation involving tangible items. As the Court reiterated just a few years ago, the "physical entry of By Todd A. Berger . 20 the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is Procedure directed." And we have long adhered to the view that the warrant procedure mini- mizes the danger of needless intrusions of that sort.The parties have argued at some length about the prac- tical consequences of a warrant requirement as a precondi- tion to a felony arrest in the home. In the absence of any evidence that effective law enforcement has suffered in those States that already have such a requirement, we are inclined to view such arguments with skepticism. More fun- damentally, however, such arguments of policy must give way to a constitutional command that we consider to be unequivocal. Finally, we note the State's suggestion that only a search warrant based on probable cause to believe the suspect is at home at a given time can adequately pro- tect the privacy interests at stake, and since such a warrant requirement is manifestly impractical, there need be no war- rant of any kind. We find this ingenious argument unpersua- sive. It is true that an arrest warrant requirement may afford less protection than a search warrant requirement, but it will suffice to interpose the magistrate's determination of probable cause between the zealous officer and the citizen