The police obtained a valid arrest warrant for a drug dealer. A reliable informant told the police that the drug dealer was staying at a friend's house until "the heat was off." Without having obtained a search warrant, the police went to the friend's house, knocked on the door, and asked the friend if the drug dealer was there. The friend replied that the drug dealer had been staying at the house for a few days but had left a few hours ago. The police pushed open the door and began searching for the drug dealer. They found him hiding in a closet along with two five-pound bricks of marijuana. They arrested both the drug dealer and the friend. Before his trial for possession of marijuana, the friend moved to suppress the marijuana found in the closet. Should the court grant the motion to suppress?

(A) Yes, because a search warrant was re-quired
(B) Yes, because the police may not execute an arrest warrant at the third party’s home
(C) No, because the police had probable cause to believe that the drug dealer was staying at the friend’s home.
(D) No, because the police had a valid arrest warrant and the marijuana was found incident to the arrest.

Yes, the court should grant the motion to suppress as the police had searched for and taken into custody the marijuana bricks without having a search warrant.

Explanation:

For the action carried out by the police to be deemed as lawful, the police should have a warrant issued by the magistrate.
An operation carried out by the police in private property without a warrant is considered as a breach of rights of the individual and can be used against the police.
Any property taken into custody by the police without a search warrant can be asked to be suppressed by the defendant.