of that factual precedent, we hold that the trial court’s finding that West’s waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary was also not clearly erroneous. This argument is therefore without merit. ¶ 89. West further contends that his statements as well as the pistol should have been suppressed because the police failed to obtain a warrant before arresting him at his residence. In Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980), the United States Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment prohibits police from making felony arrests of people from within the confines of their homes unless they have an arrest warrant, absent exigent circumstances like a fleeing felon or imminent destruction of evidence. Accord Wilson v. State, 433 So.2d 1142, 1145 (Miss.1983) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 90. In Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 110
holding that the evidence obtained as part of an illegal stop should have been suppressed even where the defendants consented to the search holding that the lower court should have entered a final order on custody holding that where information obtained from illegal warrantless search of a briefcase was used to establish probable cause for the warrant to search briefcase evidence obtained pursuant to the warrant was properly suppressed holding that evidence obtained pursuant to an unlawful stop should have been suppressed because there were no intervening events that purged the illegal taint holding lower court should have suppressed a statement that was obtained to an warrantless arrest made in appellants home