With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that, even if the sweep was unlawful and the evidence wrongfully admitted, the defendant was not harmed by the wrongful admission. Id. at 512-513, 797 P.2d at 301-302. Furthermore, we are not persuaded by the application of al cases that it maintains support its position that protective sweeps are justified if incident to the arrests of drug traffickers or fugitives because “drug trafficking frequently begets violence.” However, our review of these cases reveals facts beyond the arrestee’s status as a drug offender, including facts suggesting that other persons were present, facts indicating that the officers were already in the house searching for the defendant at the time of the sweep, or other evidence of an ongoing criminal operation in the house. See, e.g., Unit 6 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (<HOLDING>), abrogated on other grounds by Apprendi v. New

A: holding that officers were not justified in conducting a protective sweep incident to the defendants arrest despite the defendants alleged involvement with narcotics and possession of weapons because the defendant did not resist and there was no noise or other evidence suggesting anyone else was present in the house
B: holding that the officers were entitled to conduct a protective sweep because they located the defendant in the house there were other people present and the defendant was actively trying to conceal drags
C: holding a protective sweep unconstitutional where officers had no information that any other persons were in the apartment
D: 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
B.