The following excerpt is from People v. Payton, 380 N.E.2d 224, 408 N.Y.S.2d 395, 45 N.Y.2d 300 (N.Y. 1978):
Entry for the purpose of arrest may be expected to be quite different. While the taking into custody of the person of the householder is unquestionably of grave import, there is no accompanying prying into the area of expected privacy attending his possessions and affairs. That personal seizure alone does not require a warrant was established by United States v. Watson (423 U.S. 411, 96 S.Ct. 820, 46 L.Ed.2d 598, Supra ), which upheld a warrantless arrest made in a public place. In view of the minimal intrusion on the elements of privacy of the hope which results from entry on the premises for making an arrest (as compared with the gross intrusion which attends the arrest itself), we perceive no sufficient reason for distinguishing between an arrest in a public place and an arrest in a residence. To the extent that an arrest will always be distasteful or offensive, there is little reason to assume that arrest within the home is any more so than arrest in a public place; on the contrary, it may well be that because of the added exposure the latter may be more objectionable.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.