home. See United States v. Archibald, 589 F.3d 289, 297 (6th Cir.2009) (adopting position of several courts that a sweep incident to an arrest made outside the home requires officers to have reasonable suspicion that there is a dangerous individual in the house); United States v. Henry, 48 F.3d 1282, 1284 (D.C.Cir.1995) (requiring reasonable suspicion of the presence of a dangerous individual to justify a sweep incident to an arrest made outside of front door); United States v. Oguns, 921 F.2d 442, 446 (2d Cir.1990) (adopting Buie’s reasonable suspicion test for evaluating security sweeps incident to arrests made outside of the home); see also United States v. Kimmons, 965 F.2d 1001, 1009-10 (11th Cir.1992) vacated on other grounds, 508 U.S. 902, 113 S.Ct. 2326, 124 L.Ed.2d 239 (1993) (<HOLDING>). But the officer’s protective sweep in this
holding a protective sweep unconstitutional where officers had no information that any other persons were in the apartment holding that protective sweep was permitted of adjacent room of apartment where apartment consisted of two small rooms holding that officers protective sweep through basement subsequent to arrest on drug charges could not be justified on the sole ground that the subject of drugs is a dangerous one especially for those who are on the law enforcement side holding that the officers were justified in conducting a protective sweep incident to the defendants arrest on outstanding warrants because the officers had information that the defendant was suspected of running a methamphetamine operation on the premises other people were living there and assisting the defendant and at the time the sweep began the defendant had not yet been located holding that protective sweep was justified incident to arrest outside residence where officers had reasonable suspicion that dangerous individuals were in apartment