In canada, You and your partner are on general patrol late night in a residential area. You see a young male pushing a motorcycle on your police computer. The compute check reveals that the motorcycle in question is on file as being stolen two days ago from a house in the area where you are now. On the basis of this information, you and your partner arrest the male.

Upon his arrest, the young man orally identifies himself to you. He points to a house across the street and says that he lives there and that his wallet with his dirver's license is there. Your partner advises the young man thath e is going to be escroted into his house so that he can obtain his wallet and identification. The young man states several times that he does not want you to go inside his house. You and your partner search him and discover what appears to be a house key in his pants pocket. Your partner advises you to stay with the young man while he goes into the house to get the wallet. You watch as your partner uses the key obtained from the suspect to enter the house by the front door. He returns a short time later to where you are standing with the suspect. Your partner advises you that he obtained the young man's wallet and identification, and he tells you that when he was in the house, he observed a large quantity of suspected M.D.M.A. (ecstasy) pills packaged in bags on the kitchen table. a. Was your original search of the male lawful? Explain b. Was your partner's entry into the house against the arrested male's objection lawful? Explain. c. Could your partner have seized the suspected ecstasy pills under the plain-view doctrine? d. Could you now obtain a search warrant for the suspected ecstasy pills? explain.

b. Was your partner's entry into the house against the arrested male's objection lawful? Explain.

c. Could your partner have seized the suspected ecstasy pills under the plain-view doctrine?

d. Could you now obtain a search warrant for the suspected ecstasy pills? explain. I really need help on this I am super confused, wouldn't they need a search warrant to search the man in the first place?