As part of a drug-trafficking investigation, two law enforcement agents were preparing a search warrant application for a suspect's apartment. While the agents were preparing the warrant application, three other agents went to the suspect's apartment to preserve evidence in anticipation of receiving and executing the warrant. One agent stationed himself outside of the apartment building, while the other two agents entered the building and knocked on the door of the suspect's apartment. When the suspect opened the door and saw the agents, she tried to slam the door shut, but the agents pushed their way into the residence, forced the suspect to the ground, and handcuffed her. The agents claimed that while they were subduing the suspect, they heard noise coming from another room, which led them to believe that another individual was present in the apartment. Accordingly, the agents began to conduct a protective sweep of the apartment. During the sweep, the agents opened a closed bedroom door and observed firearms and drug paraphernalia on the bed. The agents did not seize the firearms and drug paraphernalia at that time. After the agents finished their sweep of the apartment, they detained the suspect and waited for the warrant to be issued. Several hours later, upon issuance and execution of a valid search warrant, the agents seized various items of evidence from the apartment, including cocaine, heroin, and three unregistered firearms. The suspect was charged with various drug and firearm offenses and moved to suppress the evidence seized from the apartment.

Discuss whether the defendant's motion to suppress by analyzing

1) Was the initial protective sweep unlawful, thereby causing the drugs and paraphernalia to be come fruit of the poisonous tree under the exclusionary rule?

2) If the drugs were tainted, were they cured by the subsequent warrant?

3) Does the inevitable discovery doctrine apply here?