Opinion ID: 171617
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Questioning Without Miranda Warnings

Text: Next, Mr. DeJear argues that Officer Morrison violated his Fifth Amendment rights by asking him what he was stuffing in the car without first giving him the proper Miranda warnings. Again, we are not persuaded by his arguments. As we have noted, the district court rejected this argument by applying New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984). Under Quarles, an officer may question a suspect in custody without first giving the Miranda warnings if the questions arise out of an objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public from any immediate danger associated with a weapon. Id. at 659 n. 8, 104 S.Ct. 2626. This circuit has applied the Quarles public safety exception to allow an officer to ask a suspect, Do you have any guns or sharp objects on you, without first giving the Miranda warnings. United States v. Lackey, 334 F.3d 1224, 1225 (10th Cir. 2003). We reasoned that the question addressed a real and substantial risk to the safety of the officers and Defendant: If Defendant was carrying such an item, he could use it against the officers or, perhaps more likely, someone could be seriously injured when Defendant, who was already under arrest, was routinely searched or frisked. Id. at 1227 (emphasis deleted); cf. United States v. Holt, 264 F.3d 1215, 1226 (10th Cir.2001) (en banc) (holding that, during a routine traffic stop, an officer may ask whether loaded weapons are present [g]iven the dangers inherent in all traffic stops). However, we have not yet adopted a generally applicable standard for determining whether a sufficient threat to officer safety exists under Quarles. In contrast, the Sixth Circuit has announced such a standard. Under Quarles 's public safety exception, [f]or an officer to have a reasonable belief that he is in danger, at minimum, he must have a reason to believe (1) that the defendant might have (or recently have had) a weapon, and (2) that someone other than police might gain access to that weapon and inflict harm with it. United States v. Williams, 483 F.3d 425, 428 (6th Cir.2007). We agree with the Sixth Circuit's formulation and apply it here. Mr. DeJear contends that the Quarles exception is not applicable because all the occupants of the vehicle had their hands raised with firearms pointed at them. Aplt's Br. at 23. In our view, that argument unfairly minimizes the potential dangers confronted by the police officers here. When Officer Morrison asked Mr. DeJear what he was stuffing into the seat, Mr. DeJear had twice refused to show his hands, as Officer Morrison had requested. The combination of Mr. DeJear's attempts to stuff something into the seat and his initial refusal to comply with the officer's request to show his hands established objectively reasonable grounds for the officers to believe that Mr. DeJear (1) might have (or recently have had) a weapon and that someone other than police might gain access to that weapon and inflict harm with it. Williams, 483 F.3d at 428. Thus, under Quarles, Officer Morrison could ask Mr. DeJear about what he was stuffing without first administering the proper Miranda warnings.