☢ test - Í

Simpson's admissions to smoking marijuana in the revocation hearing, which is not a criminal proceeding, did not violate Miranda. ” 26. PUBLIC SAFETY EXCEPTION Bowling v. State, 289 Ga. 881, 717 S.E.2d 190 (October 17, 2011). Murder and aggravated assault convictions affirmed; no Miranda violation where officer, on learning that defendant had shot victim, “asked Bowling where the weapon was. In New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 656 (104 S.Ct. 2626, 81 L.Ed.2d 550) (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized an exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given that applies in situations in which ‘police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for public safety.’ See also Smith v. State, 264 Ga. 857(3) (452 S.E.2d 494) (1995). Like the officers in Quarles, [Officer] Shapiro was confronted with an immediate need to locate a gun that the suspect recently possessed, likely was discarded nearby, and ‘posed more than one danger to the public safety.’ Quarles, supra, 467 U.S. at 657. Accordingly, Shapiro's inquiry about the location of the gun was justified.” Accord, Newsome (January 16, 2007), below. United States v. Newsome, 475 F.3d 1221 (11 th Cir., January 16, 2007). Police located defendant, who was wanted in connection with a shooting, in a hotel room. Believing defendant to be violent, potentially armed with firearms, and with at least one other person, officers ordered him to open the hotel room door, which he did after some delay. “They secured him with handcuffs, and one officer asked him if there was ‘anything or anyone in the room that [he] should know about.’ Newsome told the officer that he had a gun ‘over there,’ motioning with his head in the direction of the nightstand by the bed.” Defendant was subsequently charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence as the product of an unwarned interrogation. Held, the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress pursuant to the public safety exception. “Newsome was questioned about whether anything or anyone else was in the room right after the officers ordered him to the ground and while he was being secured. At the same time, other officers were securing the room to ensure that no weapons or other individuals were present. At the time the question was asked, the officers had reason to suspect that Newsome was with another person and did not know if anyone else was hiding in the room or bathroom. The officers reasonably believed that they were in danger, and they acted accordingly to protect themselves and other motel guests in making the arrest. The officer asked what was necessary to secure the scene. He first asked: “Is there anything or anyone in the room that I should know about?” and then followed up to pinpoint the exact location of the gun. We do not find the broad phrasing of the officer’s question here problematic. An officer is not expected to craft a perfect question in the heat of the moment. United States v. Williams, 181 F.3d 945, 954 n. 13 (8 th Cir., 1999) (‘The fact that the question was also broad enough to elicit other information does not prevent application of the public safety exception when safety was at issue.’)” Based on New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 657-58, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 2632, 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984). Accord, Bowling (October 17, 2011), above. Martin v. State, 277 Ga. 227, 587 S.E.2d 650 (October 20, 2003). Responding to a dispatch about a knife attack, “[t]he officer arrived at the address as Martin was walking out of the door. The officer asked Martin where the knife was. Martin led him inside the house to his bedroom and said that the knife was under the pillow on his bed. The officer recovered the knife, placed Martin in his patrol car, and read him his Miranda rights. As a general rule, Miranda prohibits the interrogation of suspects in police custody until they are informed of their rights. In New York v. Quarles [467 U.S. 649, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984)], however, the United States Supreme Court created a ‘public safety’ exception to Miranda. This exception allows an officer to ascertain whether a suspect is armed prior to advising him of his rights. Because the officer was entitled to determine the location of the knife prior to reading Martin his Miranda rights, the trial court did not err in admitting Martin’s statements and the knife into evidence.” Davis v. State, 244 Ga.App. 708, 536 S.E.2d 596 (June 29, 2000). Armed robbery and related convictions affirmed; trial court properly admitted evidence of non- Mirandized statement by defendant under public safety exception. Upon arresting defendant for shooting, a few hours after the incident, “the arresting officer twice asked Davis where the gun was, to which Davis finally responded that it was in the dresser. After retrieving the .25 caliber gun and related ammunition from the dresser and also discovering a holster for a larger gun, the officer asked Davis where the larger gun was, to which Davis responded he had sold it. No other questions were posed.” “In New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 655, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984), the United States Supreme Court held that ‘there is a “public safety” exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a suspect's answers may be admitted into evidence,’ regardless of the officer's actual motivation for making inquiries. In Quarles, the officers chased down a rape suspect who reportedly was carrying a gun. Id. at 652, 104 S.Ct. 2626. After finding a shoulder holster on the suspect, the police handcuffed him and asked where the gun was. Nodding in the direction of some empty cartons, the