delivered the opinion *142 of the Court.
The State appeals the Gallatin County District Court order suppressing evidence found in a search incident to an arrеst for issuing a bad check. We reverse.
Between July 17, 1981, and July 26, 1981, Brian Wood issued four checks that totaled $49.97, and between Octobеr 10, 1981, and October 30, 1981, he issued nine more that totaled $181.79. Each of these checks was returned to the payee becаuse of insufficient funds in Wood’s account. The payees did not contact Wood.
On November 23, 1981, the justice of the peace issued an arrest warrant for Wood on the charge of issuing a bad check. There were no previous efforts tо secure his presence to answer the charge or post bond.
At approximately 7:30 a.m. on December 4, 1981, Officer David Peterson of the Gallatin County Sheriff’s Department arrested Wood at his home. No offer to accept bond ($500) wаs made nor was a “notice to appear” or summons tendered in lieu of a full custodial arrest.
During the booking proсedure a full search of Wood was conducted, and one gram of hashish was found. On March 29, 1982, informations were filed charging Wоod with issuing a bad check and with criminal possession of dangerous drugs, both felonies.
Wood plead guilty to issuing a bad check. However, the District Court granted his motion to suppress the contraband on the basis that the arrest, from which the search stemmed, was an unconstitutional invasion of privacy under
State v. Carlson
(1982),
From this ruling the State appeals. The sole issue for our consideration is whether a full custodial arrest was proper in this case.
Essentially, the State contends that the District Court mistakenly extended the Carlson decision to felonies. The *143 Court, in Carlson, clearly limited its ruling to traffic-related misdemeanors. The interests of society in the administration of justicе is greater here than in Carlson, since a felony is involved. This is a sufficient compelling interest to justify a full custodial arrest.
We hold the arrest was not a violation of Wood’s constitutional right of privacy. Full custodial arrests, supported by a warrant, for felonies are proper. First of all, the apprehension of felony suspects is a compelling state interest that justifies a full custodial arrest pursuant to a warrant. This Court held in
State ex rel. Zander v. District Court
(1979),
Second, Carlson is limited to traffic-related misdemeanors. In Carlson, this Court addressed the issue whether a full custodial arrest was proper for misdemeanor traffic offenses. Carlson was involved in a traffic accident whereupon he told the investigating police that he had a licеnse but did not have it with him. The police could not immediately check on this story. Later, police found defendant was driving with a rеvoked license; thus, the city clerk was told to mail two “notices to appear” to defendant for driving without a licensе and obstructing an officer. The notices summoned the defendant to appear on March 11, 1981. The notices were not mаiled and when the defendant failed to appear, the police obtained a warrant and arrested the defendant. When the arrest occurred in defendant’s home, contraband was observed. Police later obtained a search warrant and seized the contraband. Defendant was charged with criminal possession of dangerous drugs and *144 theft, all felonies. The District Court suppressed the seized evidence because defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights had been violated.
This Court hеld that entry by the police pursuant to the arrest warrant was unreasonable, as there was no justification or exigenсy for a full custodial arrest. Hence, the observation of the contraband was a warrantless search which is always рresumed unreasonable.
Carlson,
The rationale for our holding was based on the misdemeanor traffic offenses. Applied to such offenses, there were less intrusive means to accomplish the State’s objective; therefore, no comрelling interest existed for the State’s invasion of Carlson’s privacy. Specifically, the defendant was never notified of thе traffic violations and there is a specific municipal policy that prevents arrests for traffic offenses unless the accused does not respond to notices. We noted other options less intrusive than an arrest that the city could have utilized but did not.
Further indication that Carlson is limited to traffic-related misdemeanors is found in the last paragraph of the majority opinion. We statеd:
“.. .if we were to sustain the entry by the police officers as reasonable, there would be few instances in the service of warrants of arrest for traffic-related offenses when the officers would not gain entrance inside the home. New рersons are fully dressed and ready for the street when they answer the door in response to a knock. Inevitably the search would be held incident to the arrest, and not vice versa. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has been carеful to avoid opening up searches on the basis of traffic-related arrests, Taglavore v. United States (1961),291 F.2d 262 ; as has the Fifth Circuit, Amador-Gonzalez v. United States (1968),391 F.2d 308 .”644 P.2d at 505 ,39 St.Rep. at 811 .
Consequently, the District Court here erroneously extended Carlson to felonies. Wood was charged with a viola *145 tion of section 45-6-316(1), MCA, a felony, and a full custodial arrest was proper pursuant to a valid warrant.
Third, if every felony arrest supported by a warrant was subject to heightened judicial scrutiny, law enforcement would be unreasonably burdened. In effect, the police would have no сlear guidelines to determine whether a particular arrest will be constitutionally correct.
The order of the District Court suppressing the evidence is vacated, and the cause remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.