Federal officers located Shedrick Hollis in an apartment after receiving information that he could be found there and that the apartment was a drug house. They executed an arrest warrant, entered after seeing Hollis through a window, arrested him, and conducted a protective sweep. Officers saw marijuana and firearms in plain view, then obtained a search warrant and found additional drugs, cash, and a scale bearing Hollis’s fingerprint. Hollis was convicted of federal drug and firearm offenses and challenged the evidence under the Fourth Amendment. He also challenged the exclusion of his fingerprint expert under Daubert. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The subject of an arrest warrant may not challenge the warrant’s execution or evidence discovered in a third party’s home on the third party’s privacy rights, and the officers had articulable grounds to conduct a protective sweep based on information that armed people might be inside. Contraband observed from a lawful vantage point during that sweep was admissible, as was evidence found under the ensuing search warrant. The district court also acted within its discretion in excluding the expert because the witness was unqualified to compare fingerprints and acknowledged that the same expertise was required to assess whether a latent print was suitable for comparison. The conviction was affirmed.