of the Fourth Amendment,” i.e., that “the home is entitled to special protect Cartons asked what the officer was doing there, and he informed them that he was there to “look around.” The officer had previously received the consent of the owner to search the camp. Neither of the Cartons affirmatively denied the officer consent to conduct the search. Given the lack of any objection by the Cartons, and because the officer had previously received the consent of the owner to search the camp, the court did not err in concluding that the warrantless search was valid. B. Pre-Miranda Statement [¶ 21] The Cartons argue that Kevin Carton was in custody when he indicated to the officer where the gassing generator was located, and that his statement is therefore inadmissible a 30, 932 A.2d 1169 (<HOLDING>). [¶ 24] Here, the officer had probable cause
holding that questions concerning the place and date of birth fall within the routine booking question exception to miranda holding that officers premiranda questions concerning active methamphetamine production were within the public safety exception 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 questions about the location of a gassing generator and other equipment related to the production of methamphetamine fall within the protective sweep exception to miranda holding a protective sweep unconstitutional where officers had no information that any other persons were in the apartment