IN TWO CASES, UNITED STATES V. WATSON AND UNITED STATES V. SANTANA, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT IF PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTS, THE FOURTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT PROHIBIT AN OFFICER FROM MAKING A WARRANTLESS ARREST IN A PUBLIC PLACE, EVEN IF THERE IS SUFFICIENT TIME TO PROCURE A WARRANT. THESE DECISIONS RAISE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY TO OBTAIN AN ARREST WARRANT TO ENTER PRIVATE PREMISES TO MAKE AN ARREST IN THE ABSENCE OF EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES. THE LOGICAL RESULT OF THE DECISIONS SEEMS TO BE THAT A WARRANT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR SUCH AN ARREST ON PRIVATE PREMISES. HOWEVER, IT IS ARGUED THAT THE ABROGATION OF THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT FOR PRIVATE ARREST IS NOT A LOGICAL OUTGROWTH OF THE WATSON AND SANTANA OPINIONS. THERE ARE THREE TRADITIONAL FUNCTIONS OF A WARRANT: (1) TO KEEP HINDSIGHT FROM COLORING AN EVALUATION OF THE REASONABLENESS OF AN ARREST OR SEARCH; (2) TO PROVIDE AN OBJECTIVE PREDETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE BY A DISINTERESTED MAGISTRATE; AND (3) TO SET LIMITS ON THE SCOPE OF AN INTRUSION. THE FOURTH AMENDMENT HAS RECENTLY BEEN VIEWED AS A BALANCING PROCESS BETWEEN EFFECTIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES AND PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC ON ONE HAND, AND THE PRIVACY INTEREST OF THE SUSPECT ON THE OTHER. IF THIS BALANCING APPROACH IS USED, THE QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ARREST MAY REQUIRE POLICE TO OBTAIN A WARRANT IN THE LATTER CASE. PRIVATE ARREST INVOLVES A MORE SERIOUS INTRUSION ON A PERSON'S PRIVACY THAN DOES A PUBLIC ARREST. PUBLIC ARREST INVOLVES NO INTRUSION ON AN ARRESTEE'S EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, AND THE ARREST INVOLVES ONLY A SEIZURE; A PRIVATE ARREST HAS THE CHARACTER OF BOTH A SEARCH AND SEIZURE. THUS, IN THE CASE OF PRIVATE ARRESTS, A DIFFERENT BALANCE IS STRUCK BETWEEN THE COMPETING INTERESTS OF EFFECTIVE POLICE PROCEDURES AND AN INDIVIDUAL'S PRIVACY INTEREST. THEREFORE, THE REASONING IN THE WATSON AND SANTANA CASES NEED NOT TO BE EXTENDED TO ARREST ON PRIVATE PREMISES. BECAUSE INTRUSION INTO ONE'S DWELLING HAS LONG BEEN CONSIDERED THE MOST SERIOUS TYPE OF GOVERNMENTAL INTERFERENCE, THE BALANCE REQUIRES THE IMPARTIAL JUDGMENT OF A JUDICIAL OFFICER TO ACHIEVE THE REASONABLENESS REQUIRED BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.