THE COMMON LAW TRADITIONALLY ALLOWS THE POLICE TO ENTER A HOME TO MAKE AN ARREST WHEN IN 'HOT PURSUIT' OF A FELON OR IN CASES OF 'EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCE.' HOWEVER, IT IS VAGUE ON THE ENTERING OF A HOME WITHOUT A WARRANT TO ARREST A SUSPECTED FELON. COMMENTATORS HAVE LINED UP ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE. STATE COURTS ARE EVENLY DIVIDED, WHILE MOST FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEALS REGARD SUCH WARRANTLESS ARRESTS AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. HOWEVER, MOST STATE LEGISLATURES HAVE PASSED LAWS ALLOWING THEM IN FELONY CASES AND THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE APPROVES OF THIS INTERPRETATION. IN THE UNITED STATES V. REED THE DEFENDANTS WERE ARRESTED IN THEIR APARTMENT ON SUSPICION OF NARCOTICS VIOLATIONS BY FEDERAL AGENTS ACTING WITHOUT A WARRANT. ONCE INSIDE THE AGENTS SEIZED TWO INCRIMINATING TELEPHONE BOOKS THAT WERE IN PLAIN VIEW. THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT HELD THE ARREST UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND RULED THAT THE BOOKS COULD NOT BE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE. THE REASONING IN THE DECISION IS DETAILED. IN PAYTON THE POLICE ENTERED THE HOME OF AN ARMED ROBBERY SUSPECT WITHOUT A WARRANT UNDER AUTHORITY GRANTED BY NEW YORK LAW, WHILE THERE THEY SEIZED EVIDENCE. THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS UPHELD THE ARREST AND ALLOWED THE EVIDENCE TO BE INTRODUCED. THE CASE FOR AND AGAINST WARRANTLESS ARRESTS IS REVIEWED. IT IS CONCLUDED THEY SHOULD BE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXCEPT IN EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES. THERE ARE 110 FOOTNOTES. (GLR)