allege two distinct violations of their Fourth Amendment rights: (1) an unlawful intrusion into their home, and (2) an unlawful seizure of the Children. Plaintiffs base these claims on their allegations that Clinton (joined by an armed officer) entered Parents’ home “without a warrant, the consent of anyone at the home, or any exigent circumstances,” and, upon entering, coerced Parents into removing the Children for the course of BCCYS’s investigation. Am. Compl. ¶ 21. The Supreme Court has stated that the “physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.” Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 585-86, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980); see also Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 592, 126 S.Ct. 2159, 165 L.Ed.2d 56 (2006) (<HOLDING>). Further, courts have held that the coerced
holding that a police officers illegal manner of entry into ones home is a constitutional violation albeit not one that triggers the exclusionary rule holding that officers request for defendants name during an illegal entry constituted exploitation of the illegal entry under hall holding that a violation of  6103 does not require the application of the exclusionary rule holding a statutory violation insufficient to justify imposition of the exclusionary rule absent an underlying constitutional violation or right holding that one of the purposes of the exclusionary rule is to ensure police officers carefully review warrants