OH again applies protective sweep to things and not people

Officers knew that defendant had bought psuedophedrine and that her son had red phosphorus. They went to her house for a knock and talk and, when she opened the door, they could immediately smell methamphetamine production. Exigent circumstances were present for a protective sweep. State v. White, 2008 Ohio 2432, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 2072 (9th Dist. May 21, 2008):

[*P12] Initially, we note that White has not challenged this Court’s prior determination that the operation of a methamphetamine production laboratory constitutes an exigent circumstance. See Sandor at P10-12. See, also, R.C. 2933.33(A) (providing that exigent circumstances exist and officers may conduct a warrantless search of a premises if they have probable cause to believe that the premises is being used for illegal manufacturing of methamphetamines). Nor has she argued that officers exceeded the scope of the initial, protective search that they engaged in after entering her home. See State v. Walters, 9th Dist. No. 23795, 2008 Ohio 1466, at P10-11, citing Maryland v. Buie (1990), 494 U.S. 325, 327, 110 S. Ct. 1093, 108 L. Ed. 2d 276 (holding that after an officer’s initial entry, he may engage in a limited search of the premises incident to an arrest, if he has “a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts” that a protective sweep is necessary to minimize potential danger to himself or others). She only argues that officers did not have probable cause to believe that a methamphetamine laboratory existed, such as to trigger the exigency and justify their initial entry. Consequently, we confine our analysis to White’s probable cause argument with regard to the officers’ initial entry. See App.R. 16(A)(7); Loc.R. (7)(B)(7).

Comment: Thus, once again, Buie is applied to a protective sweep for things and not people (slip op at ¶ 17).