a danger to those on the arrest scene.” Buie, 494 U.S. at 337, 110 S.Ct. at 1099-100. In order to perform a protective sweep that comports with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, the officers must in the first place be lawfully within the premises. See Caraballo, 595 F.3d at 1224-25. Because the officers’ initial warrantless entry into Tim-mann’s apartment was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, the officers were not lawfully on the premises. Thus, the District Court erred in holding that the officers’ subsequent forced entry into Timmann’s locked bedroom was a lawful protective sweep. Neither was the officers’ entry into Tim-mann’s bedroom justified under the emer gency aid exception. Because the officers’ initial entry into Timmann’s apart F.2d 308, 318 (5th Cir.1968) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds by United States
holding that direct and indirect evidence from unlawful searches is inadmissible holding a confession resulting from an unlawful seizure and  subsequent narcotics arrest was the fruit of the poisoned tree and therefore inadmissible holding that evidence that would not have been obtained but for an unlawful search must be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree holding evidence found pursuant to warrant based on probable cause provided by prior illegal entry was inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree holding incriminating statements defendant made when police officers questioned him regarding heroin the officers found during an unlawful search of defendants house were fruit of the poisonous tree