With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that Defendant and his wife were ever engaged in drug trafficking in New Mexico, nor any evidence that there might be narcotics or weapons in their home. Without such evidence, the State failed to provide specific, articulable facts to establish a reasonable belief that Defendant’s residence might harbor a dangerous individual so as to warrant a protective sweep. See Buie, 494 U.S. at 336-37. {30} Finally, because we determine that the protective sweep was unjustified, the limited extent of that sweep does not serve to remedy the unwarranted intrusion into Defendant’s home. See Buie, 494 U.S. at 334 n.2 (rejecting the government’s contention that a protective sweep is such a de minimis intrusion such that no level of objective justification should be required); Hogan, 38 F.3d at 1150 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, given the illegal nature of the

A: recognizing that the justification for a protective sweep of even a few minutes would be questionable in light of the officers concession that after arresting the defendant in front of his house the officer could have just put the defendant in the car and driven away
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 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
D: holding that the seizure of a shotgun that the police found while searching a house a few minutes after the defendant and his girlfriend were removed and put into police cars could not be justified as a search incident to his arrest
A.