Steve Burgess was charged with drug and explosive-device offenses after officers entered his home under a family-violence temporary protective order. The trial court suppressed some evidence and statements but upheld the search and admitted Burgess’s post-arrest statement. In the consolidated appeals, the Court of Appeals affirmed the suppression ruling where the trial court had granted relief and reversed where it had denied relief. The court held that the protective order did not authorize officers to enter Burgess’s home without a search warrant. Neither consent nor the good-faith exception supplied an alternative basis for the entry, and the order did not authorize a search for methamphetamine or explosive devices. Because the search was unlawful, the court also reversed the ruling that Burgess’s stationhouse statement was voluntary. The ruling left intact the portions of the trial court’s order suppressing evidence while extending suppression to the evidence and statement admitted below. The case is notable for the limits on using a family-violence protective order as a substitute for a warrant.