See State v. Bell, 195 N.J.Super. 49, 55, 477 A.2d 1272 (App.Div.1984). “The warrant re quirement is predicated upon the premise that the necessity and reasonableness of a search can best be determined ‘by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of ... [a police] officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.’ ” State v. Malik, supra, 221 N.J.Super. at 118, 534 A.2d 27 (quoting Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14, 68 S.Ct. 367, 369, 92 L.Ed. 436, 440 (1948)). It is well settled, however, that there are several narrowly tailored exceptions to the warrant requirement. Id. See Horton v. California, 495 U.S. ——, ——- n. 4, 110 S.Ct. 2301, 2306 n. 4, 110 L.Ed.2d 112,120 n. 4 (1990); State v. Bell, supra, 195 N.J.Super. at 55, 477 A.2d 1272 (<HOLDING>). As our Supreme Court expressed in State v.
holding that there is no general reasonableness approach to warrantless seizures holding that government employers may conduct warrantless workrelated searches of employees offices without probable cause holding there is no requirement that the government obtains a warrant at the first moment probable cause exists  the touchstone for determining the constitutionality of warrantless searches is one of reasonableness under the circumstances holding that under the fourth amendment a party may challenge both the constitutionality of the act permitting warrantless searches as well as the conduct of the government officials in a particular case holding the touchstone of determining existence of erisa plan is whether an administrative scheme is required