Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the protective sweep, and the exclusion of Defendant’s family from the home. {19} Functionally, the service of the warrant in this case was simply a continuation of a process that had begun earlier that day. If, for example, APD had obtained its warrant and begun the process of clearing and securing the home at 8:00 p.m., but search personnel did not actually arrive and begin to examine and inventory the contents of the house until after 10:00 p.m., we would be hard-pressed to say that Rule 5-211(B) had been violated. In applying our rule, we would focus on the substance of when the police first breached the privacy of the household, not on the formality of the officers’ titles or their specific activities once inside the home. Cf. Jones v. State, 128 P.3d 521, 537 (Okla.Crim.App.2006) (<HOLDING>). {20} Of course, in our ease the initial sweep 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the judge issuing the search warrant plainly had a substantial basis for determining that there was probable cause to issue the warrant for the search of a residence when inter alia a reliable cl went to the residence knocked on the door entered and then made a controlled purchase of what appeared to be heroin (B) holding that a warrant authorizing the search of a residence vehicles at the residence and all persons found in the residence was not overly broad given that search was limited to places were drugs or weapons might be found (C) holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises (D) holding that search of shoulder bag was not authorized by search warrant for apartment (E) holding that service of a warrant occurs once an officer crosses the threshold for the purpose of beginning the search or for securing the residence for a later search
Output (English): holding that search of shoulder bag was not authorized by search warrant for apartment