Police officers went to the home of a probationer who was subject to a search condition, based on the fact that the probationer had failed a drug test. Two persons leaving the probationer’s house were briefly detained because the probationer’s conditions also prohibited him from associating with convicted felons. Officers asked the two persons for their names and birthdates. A criminal records check revealed that there were outstanding warrants for both men. Police officers arrested and searched the men, finding methamphetamine and marijuana pipes. The appellate court held that the search was justified. The intrusion was minimal, and the detention was brief. There was a legitimate need to determine the defendants’ connection to the probationer, as well as legitimate safety concerns. Once properly on the premises, the officers could briefly detain other persons to determine their identity. The outstanding warrants justified the subsequent arrests and search. Accordingly, the magistrate erred in granting the suppression motion. The dissenting opinion by J. Gaut held that because there was no suspicion of illegal activity on the premises, the suppression motion was properly granted.