Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): testimony, found thatthe agents were authorized to enter Defendant’s home in order to conduct a protective sweep incident to Defendant’s arrest because it was reasonable for them to ensure that no one was in the house before proceeding with the warrant. See State v. Trudelle, 2007-NMCA-066, ¶¶ 22-27, 142 N.M. 18, 162 P.3d 173 (discussing the law of protective sweeps and what is needed to justify a sweep pursuant to an arrest). We disagree. {14} We recognize that a protective sweep of a residence may be reasonable whether incident to an arrest taking place inside the residence or to an arrest taking place a short distance from the residence if a reasonably prudent officer would anticipate a threat to officer safety. See United States v. Colbert, 76 F.3d 773, 776-77 (6th Cir. 1996) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Henry, 48 F.3d 1282, 1284 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a controlled buy at a particular home provided probable cause for the search of that residence (B) holding that defendant was not in custody during search of his residence (C) holding that the search of purses could not be justified as a protective search for weapons when police had control of the purses (D) holding warrantless search of motel room after occupant was arrested outside room for drug possession could not be justified as search incident to arrest absent other exigent circumstances (E) recognizing that a protective search of a residence may be justified when the defendant is arrested outside of the home
Output (English): holding warrantless search of motel room after occupant was arrested outside room for drug possession could not be justified as search incident to arrest absent other exigent circumstances