198 A.D.2d 438, 604 N.Y.S.2d 146 (1993), appeal denied, 82 N.Y.2d 926, 610 N.Y.S.2d 178, 632 N.E.2d 488 (1994) (police conduct in following a defendant into his home was proper “since it is well settled that a suspect may not thwart an otherwise proper arrest by retreating into his residence”); Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 104 S.Ct. 3380, 82 L.Ed.2d 599 (1984) (a mere seizure of the premises and contents is permissible on probable cause even absent exigent circumstances; but an entry and search of the premises to facilitate an impoundment requires both probable cause and exigent circumstances). See discussion of Segura in LaFave, supra, § 6.5(c) at 363; cf. State v. Bolte, 115 N.J. 579, 560 A.2d 644 (1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 936, 110 S.Ct. 330, 107 L.Ed.2d 320 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Welsh v. Wisconsin, supra, 466 U.S. 740,104
holding that absent exigent circumstances the fourth amendment prohibits warrantless nonconsensual entry into a suspects home in order to make a felony arrest  notwithstanding the existence of probable cause to arrest holding that in die absence of exigent circumstances the mere existence of probable cause does not justify a nonconsensual entry by police into a home without an arrest or search warrant holding invalid the warrantless entry of the police into the home of a person suspected of numerous motor vehicle and disorderly persons offenses when there were no exigent circumstances holding that exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry where officers were faced with a call reporting burglary in progress holding that the police officers had probable cause to make a warrantless entry