On May $1,$ at $3$:$00$ a$.$m$.,$ an anonymous tip was phoned into the Los Angeles County Sheriff$$s Station. The anonymous caller told the watch commander that a resident in Cerritos was a $$Drug King Pin$$ selling crack cocaine and crystal meth. The caller said this dealer planned to distribute crack cocaine to $5$ street$-$level dealers at $8$:$00$ a$.$m$.$ in a local park so that it would be impossible to trace the drugs back to the kingpin. The caller did not know the kingpin$$s name, but said the kingpin was a $$house guest$$ in a blue house on South Street. The City of Cerritos had recently experienced a high number of drug$-$related overdose deaths by high school students and the community was in an uproar over the rampant drug problem.

The watch commander believed that the anonymous tip supplied probable cause for a warrantless search of Defendant David$$s home, which was painted blue and on South Street. At $4$:$00$ a$.$m$.,$ the watch commander ordered deputies to go to Defendant$$s residence to search for drugs. The deputies arrived at Defendant$$s house at $4$:$30$ a$.$m$.,$ and broke down the door with a sledge hammer to surprise the occupants. Defendant awoke from his sleep, and went to the front door to see what had happened. The deputies told him they were conducting a warrantless search of his house for drugs. Defendant asked if they had a search warrant. The deputies said that they did not need one, and had probable cause based on an informant$$s tip and exigent circumstances.

The deputies searched Defendant$$s home, but did not find any drugs. The deputies, however, did find a bus locker key in the Defendant$$s guest bathroom cabinet and a receipt for a Greyhound Bus ticket in the name of $$Danny$.$ Defendant said the key must have belonged to his recent house guest $$Danny$$ who was staying in the guest bedroom. The key was for a locker at the Greyhound Bus terminal in downtown, Los Angeles. The Greyhound Bus lockers are well known temporary storage places used by drug dealers. The deputies informed Defendant that $$Danny$$ was a notorious crack dealer. Defendant said he was unaware of Danny$$s drug dealing and thought Danny was a professional gamer because he locked himself in the room and played video games all day.

The deputies got in their vehicles and raced to the downtown bus station, which took about $45$ minutes. Unknown to the deputies and completely separate from the sheriff$$s investigation, the F$.$B$.$I. had set up surveillance on Danny. One week earlier, the F$.$B$.$I. watched Danny put a package in Locker $420.$ The F$.$B$.$I. obtained a federal search warrant for the bus locker and planned to execute the warrant on May $1$ at $6$:$00$ a$.$m$.$

By sheer coincidence, the deputies and the F$.$B$.$I. agents arrived at the bus locker at the same time. The deputies refused the F$.$B$.$I. agents access to the locker. The deputies used the key to open the locker and seized $10$ pounds of crack cocaine. The deputies sped back to their station and booked the cocaine into evidence.

David Defendant was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to sell.

For the above Fact Pattern, answer the following questions and cite the appropriate case law for each legal test or doctrine you use:

$1.$ Whether the warrantless search of Defendant$$s home was in violation of the Fourth Amendment, use the $$totality$-$of$-$the$-$circumstances$$ test;

$2.$ What exception$($s$),$ if any, do you expect the district attorney to argue for the warrantless search of the defendant$$s home;

$3.$ Explain what evidence, if any, can be excluded under the Exclusionary Rule;

$4.$ Explain what evidence, if any, can be excluded as Fruit of the Poisonous Tree; and

$5.$ What exceptions to the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine do you expect the district attorney to argue?