In People v. Ormonde (2005) 143 Cal.App.4th 282, a detective responded to a domestic violence dispatch and went to an apartment complex where the suspect was supposed to be located. The detective believed the domestic violence incident occurred either inside or outside the apartment, and felt vulnerable because he did not know if someone was going to emerge from the apartment with a weapon. The detective entered the apartment and subsequently obtained the defendant's consent to recover drugs from his bedroom. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence and argued the detective's initial entry was not justified by either exigent circumstances or as a protective sweep. (Ormonde, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at pp. 286-290.) Ormonde held the warrantless entry and search were invalid under the exigent circumstances exception because the objective circumstances known to the detective "fell short of supplying them with probable cause to believe there was someone in the apartment who was either in danger or dangerous to them." (Id. at p. 292.) Ormonde further held the search was invalid as a protective sweep under Buie's lesser standard. The detective knew the victim was not on the premises, he did not believe there was anyone in the apartment, and he was just trying to determine if someone was inside. (Ormonde, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 294.) The record failed to show the officer who conducted the sweep "actually suspected that a person was inside the residence, or that he had any grounds for suspecting as much." (Ibid.) Instead, the detective's only justification was his general experience that domestic violence situations often involve danger. (Id. at pp. 287, 294.) Ormonde held the detective's general experience in domestic violence situations failed to "rise to a reasonable suspicion that the area to be swept harbors an individual or individuals posing a danger to those on the arrest scene," as required by Buie and Celis. (Ormonde, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 295.)