entry and search of appellant’s home was justified by exigent circumstances or that it was consensual. In any event, even if these arguments were preserved, the warrantless entry of appellant's apartment was plainly not consensual, and we cannot deem it justified by exigent circumstances. See Dorman v. United States, 435 F.2d 385, 391-93 (D.C.Cir.1970) (en banc) (noting several factors — absent in this case— establishing sufficient exigency to justify war-rantless entry of a home, including whether "a grave offense is involved, particularly one that is a crime of violence,” a suspect is "reasonably believed to be armed,” and there is “a likelihood that the suspect will escape if not swiftly apprehended”). 23 . Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980) (<HOLDING>). 24 . See, e.g., Kirk v. Louisiana, 536 U.S.
holding that absent exigent circumstances an arrest within the home can only be effectuated with a warrant probable cause is insufficient holding that absent consent or exigent circumstances law enforcement officers cannot legally search for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party without first obtaining a search warrant holding that in the absence of consent or exigent circumstances a law enforcement officer must procure a search warrant before searehing for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party 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