The protective sweep here was unreasonable because the officers had no articulable facts at all that there was potentially anyone inside before entering. United States v. Rucker, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33607 (W.D. N.Y. Mar. 1, 2018).
“Mr. Huffman had no constitutional right to be advised of the consequences of submitting-to a chemical test for the presence of a controlled dangerous substance when the test results show a positive reading because Mr. Huffman was not tested for the presence of a controlled dangerous substance. Moreover, Mr. Huffman was not prejudiced by the omission from the standardized rights form of subsection (d) regarding chemical testing for the presence of controlled dangerous substances where there was no suspicion that he was under the influence of a controlled dangerous substance, and he submitted to the chemical test for intoxication, which results indicated a .172 grams percent blood alcohol concentration.” Huffman v. State, 2018 La. App. LEXIS 316 (La. App. 1 Cir. Feb. 27, 2018).*