Are warrantless, probable cause arrests reasonable when no exigency or contemporaneous crimes are present to excuse the failure to obtain a warrant?

QUESTION PRESENTED Are warrantless, probable cause arrests reasonable when no exigency or contemporaneous crimes are present to excuse the failure to obtain a warrant? Should United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976), be overruled in light of the modern trend to more closely analyze the common law within its historical context? Lange v. California, 141 8.Ct. 2011, 2022-24 (2021). In Watson, this Court adopted the categorical rule that warrantless arrests in public based on probable cause do not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Even though exigent circumstances and probable cause of a crime were present at the time of Watson’s arrest, the warrantless-arrest rule set forth in Watson did not require these conditions before the police may make a public arrest. Watson at 423-424; id. at 434-435 (Marshall, J., dissenting). Failing to condition the reasonableness of probable cause arrests in public upon exigent circumstances or contemporaneous criminal conduct left law enforcement with exclusive discretion to deprive of their liberty. For the last 46 years, the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, the role of the neutral and detached magistrate, and the protection against unreasonable seizures have been eviscerated. The Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement should demand that officers either seek a warrant from a neutral and detached magistrate or make a probable cause arrest without unjustifiable delay. Only exigent circumstances or contemporaneous criminal conduct should excuse the failure to obtain a warrant. A less demanding rule falls far below the guarantees of the common law. i