In People v. Celis (2004) 33 Cal.4th 667, the defendant was part of a drug trafficking ring that transported and sold cocaine concealed inside large truck tires. The police followed the defendant to his home and witnessed him rolling a truck tire from his house to a waiting co-conspirator. The police detained the defendant outside the house. A detective had previously observed that the defendant lived with his wife and possibly a male juvenile. (Celis, supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 671-673.) Based on that information, the police entered the defendant's home "to determine if there was anyone inside who might endanger their safety." (Id. at p. 672.) No one was inside the house but the officers found a wooden box large enough to conceal a person, which contained wrapped packages of cocaine. (Id. at pp. 672-673.) Celis held the facts known to the officers when they entered the defendant's house "fell short" of the reasonable suspicion standard required to justify a protective sweep under Buie. (Celis, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 679.) While the police had prior information that two other people lived in the house, they had no factual basis to support a reasonable suspicion that anyone was in the house at the time that they arrested the defendant outside. (Ibid.) Celis reasoned that since the officers had not kept track of who was in the house when the defendant was detained, "they had no knowledge of the presence of anyone in defendant's house," and "when they entered the house to conduct a protective sweep, they did so without 'any information as to whether anyone was inside the house.'" (Ibid.) Moreover, there was no indication that the defendant or his co-conspirator were armed when police detained them, and that police found no weapons during the earlier investigation of the drug ring. (Id. at pp. 672, 679.) Celis acknowledged the difficulties faced by police officers in such situations, but held the officers' entry into the house was presumptively unreasonable and the protective sweep unlawful, even under the lesser standard of Buie. (Celis, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 680.) "Unquestionably, the work of a police officer in the field is often fraught with danger. At any given moment, a seemingly safe encounter or confrontation with a citizen can suddenly turn into an armed and deadly attack on the officer. Society's interest in protecting police officers must, however, be balanced against the constitutionally protected interest of citizens to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. In considering both interests, the United States Supreme Court has articulated certain legal rules, allowing, for instance, a warrantless entry into a home when exigent circumstances exist, or permitting a protective sweep of areas of a home where persons in hiding may pose a danger to officer safety. . . . When the entry of a house for officer safety is based on exigent circumstances, the officers must have probable cause to believe that a dangerous person will be found inside. But a protective sweep, as described by the high court in Buie . . . can be justified by a standard lower than probable cause, namely, reasonable suspicion. Because, as we explained . . . that lower standard was not satisfied here, it follows that the higher standard requiring probable cause was not met either." (Celis, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 680.)