Respondents were obviously not overnight guests, but were essentially present for a business transaction and were only in the home for a matter of hours. There was nothing to suggest that they had a previous relationship with the owner or that there was any other purpose to their visit. While the apartment was a dwelling place for for the occupant, for the defendants, it was simply a place to do business. The Court stated. While concern for safety during a routine traffic stop may justify the 'minimal' additional intrusion of ordering a driver and passengers out of the car, it does not by itself justify the often considerably greater intrusion attending a full field-type search.
Officers have other, independent bases to search for weapons and protect themselves from danger.
Second, the need to discover and preserve evidence does not exist in a traffic stop, for once Knowles was stopped for speeding and issued a citation, all evidence necessary to prosecute that offense had been obtained. Reasonable suspicion to believe that a dangerous suspect might be present in a residence was enough to justify a no-knock entry to execute a search warrant. Even though the suspect was not present, evidence discovered was admissible. An officer can be found liable for executing an invalid warrant if the facts show that no reasonable, competent officer could have thought that it was valid. CtoC July 1999 Program Wyoming v.