was clear, the tall split-bench front seat ob-secured any clear view of the backseat. Id. at 870-71. Because the officers believed that an armed individual could potentially be concealed in the backseat, the officers conducted a protective sweep of the car. Id. at 871. Jones moved to suppress all evidence obtained from the warrantless search and the subsequent search pursuant to a warrant in part on grounds that the protective sweep of the car was unlawful. Id. Given that the officers were lawfully in the presence of the car and that a prudent officer could reasonably anticipate a dangerous individual in the car, the Eighth Circuit concluded that the protective sweep was reasonably necessary for officer safety. Id. see also United States v. Thomas, 249 F.3d 725, 730 (8th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); 3 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A
holding that officers had probable cause to search the defendants van for drugs where among other facts the defendant had voluntarily retrieved half a gram of methamphetamine from the vehicle and had acted surreptitiously in doing so holding that the protective sweep of a van was lawful where officers stopped the van on reasonable suspicion that the driver had just committed an armed bank robbery and officers could not see inside the van to determine whether other occupants posed a danger to them holding that in the absence of specific and articulable facts showing that another individual who posed a danger to the officers or others was inside the warehouse the officers lack of information could not justify the warrantless sweep and dismissing the governments argument that someone must have been guarding the cocaine inside the warehouse as the kind of unparticularized suspicion or hunch that buie held was insufficient to justify a warrantless sweep internal quotation marks and citation omitted holding that where an officer threw an arrestee against a van kneed him in the back pushed his head into the side of a van and searched his groin area in an uncomfortable manner such force was de minimis force holding circumstances supporting reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop of occupants of a van included that the van was located near the vicinity where officers had reports earlier that evening of breakins involving a van