immediately. Officer Mon-get then drew his gun, ordered Defendant to lie down on the ground, and, when Defendant complied, handcuffed Defendant before standing him up to conduct a protective search. Defendant argues that the force used by Officer Monget was excessive under the circumstances. We disagree. “Where there is reason for the officers to fear for their safety, they may unholster their guns and use reasonable force in effectuating the stop without such action automatically constituting an arrest.” State v. Lovato, 112 N.M. 517, 522, 817 P.2d 251, 256 (Ct.App.1991). Officer Monget was investigating a burglary, an inherently dangerous crime for which officers may assume that a suspect is likely to be armed. See State v. Cobbs, 103 N.M. 623, 630, 711 P.2d 900, 907 (Ct.App.1985) (<HOLDING>). Although there were several officers on the
holding that possession of burglary tools is an offense separate from burglary holding that iowa burglary is not categorical burglary as the elements of iowa burglary law are broader than those of generic burglary holding that virginia burglary statute comes within definition of generic burglary holding that the police have an automatic right to conduct a protective search of a burglary suspect because burglary is a crime for which an offender would likely be armed holding that the defendants sentence for armed burglary in violation of section 810022b was improperly enhanced pursuant to section 775087 because the use of a weapon or a firearm is an essential element of armed burglary