purposes, be lumped conveniently together in terms of analysis.”Robinson v. Neil (1973), 409 U.S. 505, 508, 93 S.Ct. 876, 878, 35 L.Ed.2d 29, 32-33. In Robinson, the U.S. Supreme Court retroactively applied its ruling in Waller v. Florida (1970), 397 U.S. 387, 90 S.Ct. 1184, 25 L.Ed.2d 435, which declared that prosecution for the same crime in both state and municipal courts violated the double jeopardy clause. See also, United States v. Johnson (1982), 457 U.S. 537, 550, 102 S.Ct. 2579, 2587, 73 L.Ed.2d 202, 214 (U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged the need to apply substantive rules retroactively when it stated: “the Court has recognized full retroactivity as a necessary adjunct to a ruling that a trial court lacked authority to convict or punish a criminal defendant in the first place”) (<HOLDING>). ¶35 After rendering its decision in Teague,
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 that the decision in payton v new york 1980 445 us 573 100 sct 1371 63 led2d 639 announcing a prohibition against warrantless nonconsensual entry into a suspects home applied retroactively 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 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 hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect justified a warrantless entry into the suspects home to protect inhabitants as long as the police did not know the home belonged to the suspect