In Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326 (2001) occupants of the apartment, which the police had abundant probable cause to believe contained illegal drugs, could readily have seen the interaction of the police and a departing occupant, the defendant's wife, giving rise to the "reasonable conclusion" that those remaining within, "consequently suspecting an imminent search, would, if given the chance, get rid of the drugs fast." (Id., 531 U.S. at 332.) The police refused to allow McArthur to reenter his home without a police escort for about two hours, while they obtained a warrant to search the home for drugs. 531 U.S. at 328-29. When McArthur did enter, a police officer stood just inside the door and watched what McArthur did. Id. at 329. The police accompanied the defendant's wife to her home while she removed her belongings. When the wife exited the home, she told the police that the defendant, who was inside the home, had marijuana. When the defendant refused to give the police permission to search the residence, the police prevented the defendant from reentering the residence without accompaniment by one of the officers. Meanwhile, a second officer left to obtain a search warrant. While the second officer was gone, the first officer accompanied the defendant into the trailer several times. An Illinois appellate court upheld the trial court's decision to suppress the drug evidence obtained after a search pursuant to the warrant. Id. at 329-30. The Supreme Court reversed. Id. at 337. In upholding the search, it relied on the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. Id. at 331, 333. The Court considered four circumstances "in combination." Id. First, the police had probable cause to believe the residence contained contraband. Id. Second, the police had good reason to fear that, unless restrained, McArthur would destroy the drugs before they could return with a warrant. . . . Third, the police made reasonable efforts to reconcile their law enforcement needs with the demands of personal privacy. They neither searched the trailer nor arrested McArthur before obtaining a warrant. Rather, they imposed a significantly less restrictive restraint, preventing McArthur only from entering the trailer unaccompanied. They left his home and his belongings intact-until a neutral Magistrate, finding probable cause, issued a warrant. . . . Fourth, the police imposed the restraint for a limited period of time, namely, two hours. Id. at 332. The Court held: "We have found no case in which this Court has held unlawful a temporary seizure that was supported by probable cause and was designed to prevent the loss of evidence while the police diligently obtained a warrant in a reasonable period of time." (Id., 531 U.S. at 334.) The court concluded that the warrantless seizure was reasonable, based on an analysis of four factors that "balanced the privacy-related and law enforcement-related concerns." (McArthur, supra, 531 U.S. at p. 331 121 S. Ct. at p. 950.) First, based on their observations of the defendant and his wife, the police had probable cause to believe that the defendant's home "contained evidence of a crime and contraband, namely, unlawful drugs." (McArthur, supra, 531 U.S. at p. 331.) Second, the police had "good reason to fear that, unless restrained, the defendant would destroy the drugs before they could return with a warrant." (Id. at p. 332.) Third, the police did not search the trailer or arrest the defendant; instead they "imposed a significantly less restrictive restraint." (Id. at p. 332.) Fourth, the seizure lasted only two hours, "no longer than reasonably necessary for the police, acting with diligence, to obtain the warrant." (Id. at p. 332.)