Arresting Bob for having a firearm in city limits, a crime, the officers proceeded to search his motel room and found evidence of drug manufacturing in the bathroom. One officer said,

Question

"where there's drugs and guns, there must be other people around, let's conduct a protective sweep." They drew their revolvers and opened all drawers and closets. Inside the closet, they found Pedro hiding. Inside one drawer, they found packets of heroin. Bob and Pedro were arrested and charged with drug possession and conspiracy to manufacture drugs. Bob claims his consent to search was coerced and the gun and drug evidence should be suppressed while the officers claim Bob's consent was valid and they discovered the evidence in plain view and it should be admissible. Pedro claims the protective sweep was conducted illegally and, therefore, his arrest was unlawful. Which side is correct, the defense or the state?
What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

ANSWER: Answers may vary: Conducting a search incident to an arrest, the officers can only search Bob's person and surrounding area. It is not clear the motel room is within Bob's control and, since no exigent circumstances are present, the officers should have secured a search warrant. Once inside illegally, everything obtained is poisoned fruit and even though officers have legal authority to conduct protective sweeps when they have reasonable belief that armed people are on the premises, a belief presumed with the drug trade, they can only look in spaces where a person might be reasonably hiding – not drawers where the heroin was found. Since the initial entry was illegal, so too, the protective sweep and Pedro's arrest.