as a third or fourth degree felony). {23} Furthermore, even assuming the agents did know that Defendant and his wife were fugitives on outstanding warrants involving possession of marijuana, we are not convinced this knowledge provides sufficient justification for the protective sweep without some evidence of ongoing drug trafficking or the presence of other potentially dangerous persons. See Colbert, 76 F.3d at 777 (stating that factors regarding the dangerousness of the arrestee, such as the arrestee’s status as an escapee wanted for murder and his possible involvement in drug trafficking, are not appropriate in determining whether officers reasonably believed someone else might be in the house who poses a danger to them thus justifying aprotective sweep); Henry, 48 F.3d at 1284 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Akrawi, 920 F.2d 418, 420-21
holding that a mistrial was not required after a police officer testified that he had once chased the defendant after the defendant had fired a gun where the testimony was a logical response to the prosecutors questions the statement was not made maliciously the evidence against the defendant was great and the jury was instructed to disregard the testimony 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 evidence of the same name the fact that the previous conviction occurred in precinct of defendants residence and that although the defendant testified he did not deny that he was the person described in the record of the previous conviction was sufficient to establish identity holding that the officers awareness that the defendant could be dangerous and that he had a previous weapons conviction was not enough to justify the sweep because once the defendant was in custody he no longer posed a threat to the police 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