house. Id. ¶ 38. Again, that is not the situation here. {19} In sum, none of the cases cited by the State support the propriety of the sweep in this case because there was no specific showing that Defendant and his wife were armed or that other persons might be with them. Allowing the agents to justify the protective sweep in the absence of information suggesting there may be a danger posed by others would be “directly contrary to the Supreme Court’s explicit command in Buie that the police have an articulable basis on which to support their reasonable suspicion of danger from inside the home.” United States v. Archibald, 589 F.3d 289, 300 (6th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we conclude that, based on the agents’ lack of information, the sweep of Defendant’s house was unauthorized. See id. (<HOLDING>). {20} Perhaps recognizing the consequences of
holding that it was plain error for trial court to allow more than one conviction of grossly negligent operation of a vehicle where more than one person was injured recognizing that cjlearly buie requires more than ignorance or a constant assumption that more than one person is present in a residence holding that more than notice to a defendant is required holding a defendant may not be convicted of more than one count of dissemination of matter harmful to minors based on one occurrence even if there was more than one victim holding that a noticeofrights form that plainly affects more than one person and encompasses more than an immediate set of facts and is applicable  to all inmates in a particular category is a rule