OH again applies protective sweep to things and not people
FourthAmendment.com:
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.…