Can a search warrant be used to search for marijuana and heroin in the bedroom of a defendant who had not consented to a search after his arrest?

The trial court ruled that the officers' first entry into the bedroom was justified by concern for personal safety. Therefore it refused to suppress the 'plain view' evidence--the heroin on the bed. It found however, as a matter of fact, that defendant had not consented to a search after his arrest; hence it suppressed any evidence 'not in plain view'--clearly the money and the hypodermic kit. (Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 762--763, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685.) The record does not show whether the court considered the marijuana to be 'plain view' evidence.