THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAS NEVER DECIDED WHETHER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES POLICE TO OBTAIN A WARRANT BEFORE MAKING A FORCIBLE ENTRY TO THE HOME TO ARREST A SUSPECT IN THE ABSENCE OF EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES. HOWEVER, THE SUPREME COURT HAS EXPRESSLY RESERVED THE QUESTION SEVERAL TIMES DURING THE PERIOD FROM 1958 TO THE PRESENT. IN THE UNITED STATES V. WATSON AND THE UNITED STATES V. SANTANA, THE SUPREME COURT INDICATED ITS WILLINGNESS TO DEAL WITH THE FOURTH AMENDMENT ARREST PROBLEMS. THE DIRECT CONFLICT BETWEEN PEOPLE V. PAYTON AND UNITED STATES V. REED ON THE ISSUE OF WARRANTLESS ENTRY TO ARREST IN THE HOME MAY PROVIDE THE COURT WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHAPE THE LAW OF ARREST UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. ALTHOUGH A WEIGHING OF INTERESTS PROVIDES THE COURT WITH A METHOD TO RESOLVE EVEN THE MOST DIFFICULT FOURTH AMENDMENT QUESTIONS, SOCIETY'S NEED FOR EFFECTIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT MUST BE BALANCED AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY. REQUIRING A WARRANT PRIOR TO ARRESTS IN THE HOME WOULD CREATE A SLIGHT BURDEN FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT, BUT THAT BURDEN WOULD BE OVERSHADOWED BY THE PROTECTION AFFORDED AGAINST UNJUSTIFIED AND ARBITARY POLICE INTRUSIONS IN THE HOME. THEREFORE, THE FOURTH AMENDMENT SHOULD REQUIRE A WARRANT PRIOR TO POLICE ENTRIES TO ARREST, AS WELL AS PRIOR TO ENTRIES TO SEARCH. NEVERTHELESS, SUCH A CONSTITUTIONAL WARRANT REQUIREMENT FOR POLICE ENTRY TO ARREST SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO AN EXCEPTION FOR EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS WHEN POLICE ARE IN HOT PURSUIT. TO PROVIDE POLICE WITH PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES, 'EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES' SHOULD BE DEFINED PRECISELY. EXTENSIVE FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (MJW)