the circumstances, a reasonably prudent and cautious police officer would be justified in believing that appellant would not go to such trouble if the box contained only matches. Id. at 559. The majority contends Wadley and Arnold are distinguishable, and therefore inapplicable, because the searches or seizures in those cases occurred in public places rather than a private residence. Hoffman v. State, Nos. 04-08-00614-CR & 04-08-00615-CR, 293 S.W.Sd 633 (Tex.App.-San Antonio May 13, 2009). However, the location of the search or seizure is of no moment in the probable cause determination. Location is important only in determining whether exigent circumstances are required for entry into a particular place without a warrant. See Parker v. State, 206 S.W.3d 593, 597 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (<HOLDING>); Janicek v. State, 634 S.W.2d 687
holding that state must prove exigent circumstances justifying immediate need to enter residence without warrant holding that in the absence of exigent circumstances the police may not enter a private residence to make a routine arrest recognizing that  exigent circumstances do not excuse the failure to secure a warrant when those circumstances are created by government officials who unreasonably and deliberately delay or avoid obtaining the warrant recognizing exigent circumstance exception to warrant requirement 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