without any type of warrant would have been justified by exigent circumstances (such as the risk that the occupants of the apartment would dispose of the drug evidence that the undercover officers had observed), reasoning that uniformed police had "created [their] own exigency” by knocking on the door and revealing their presence. Cf. United States v. Newman, 472 F.3d 233, 238 (5th Cir.2006) ("Officers may not impermissibly create exigent circumstances by revealing their presence in order to alert suspects who would, in response, destroy evidence... The facts of this case might have occasioned consideration of whether to adopt the so-called "consent once removed” doctrine, followed by at least a handful of courts. See, e.g., State v. Henry, 133 N.J. 104, 627 A.2d 125, 131 (1993) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Pollard, 215 F.3d
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 where an undercover officers initial entry into an apartment was consensual the undercover officer witnessed the commission of a crime and upon leaving the apartment the undercover officer immediately notified his backup arrest team that was waiting a short distance away the backup teams subsequent nonconsensual entry into the apartment fifteen to twenty minutes later to make arrests was a component  of a single continuous and integrated police action and did not violate the fourth amendment holding that the defendant had consented where he allowed the police officers into his apartment building and allowed the officers to follow him into his apartment without impediment or objection to the entry of the police holding the fourth amendment prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspects home in order to make a routine felony arrest holding that statements by defendant and apartment manager that defendant lived in the apartment where drugs were found demonstrated his control over the apartment even though no documents personal effects or keys were found