Opinion ID: 201385
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fox's Statements

Text: 29 Fox next challenges the district court's refusal to suppress the statements he made in response to Bergquist's weapons-related questions. He claims that because he made the statements while the subject of custodial interrogation but before he was advised of his Miranda rights, they should have been suppressed. 30 Police officers are required to inform a suspect of his Miranda rights prior to custodial interrogation. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 478-79, 86 S.Ct. 1602; see United States v. Ventura, 85 F.3d 708, 712 (1st Cir.1996). If the Miranda rule is violated, the prosecution cannot use statements obtained during the interrogation to establish its case-in-chief. See Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U.S. 344, 350, 110 S.Ct. 1176, 108 L.Ed.2d 293 (1990). 31 There are, however, several exceptions to the Miranda rule. One such exception is that Miranda warnings need not precede questions necessary to secure [an officer's] own safety or the safety of the public for a suspect's answers to be admissible as evidence of his guilt. New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 659, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984); see United States v. Shea, 150 F.3d 44, 48 (1st Cir.1998). This exception permits questions reasonably prompted by a concern for ... safety, which must be distinguished from those designed solely to elicit testimonial evidence from a suspect. Quarles, 467 U.S. at 656, 659, 104 S.Ct. 2626. [T]he availability of th[e] exception does not depend upon the motivation of the individual officers involved. Id. at 656, 104 S.Ct. 2626. 32 Here, Fox was not advised of his Miranda rights before he made the challenged statements. And, for purposes of this appeal, we assume that he was subject to custodial interrogation when he made the statements. 7 Even so, the district court did not err in refusing to suppress the statements, as they were all admissible under the public safety exception to the Miranda rule. 33 At the outset of the stop, Bergquist: (1) saw Fox make an irregular ducking motion; (2) realized that he had arrested Fox for possessing brass knuckles and a concealed firearm following a prior stop; and (3) noticed a large bulge in Fox's jacket pocket. Under the circumstances, Bergquist was permitted to ask Fox whether he possessed any weapons to ensure his own safety and the safety of any passerby. See id. at 655-59, 104 S.Ct. 2626. 34 In addition, once Bergquist had found the unused shell, he was allowed to ask Fox for the location of the gun that went with the shell and whether he had a gun or any other weapons in his vehicle. See id. Having found the live shell and realized that he had previously arrested Fox for possessing a firearm, Bergquist had ample reason to fear for his own safety and that of the public. 35 Similarly, for safety reasons, Bergquist was justified in asking Fox how to open the breech of the shotgun. See id. Bergquist had been unable to open it himself, and there was good reason to avoid transporting the gun without first ensuring that it was not loaded: The gun was fairly dilapidated, had no trigger guard, and if loaded, could have fired if inadvertently bumped or jostled. 36 Furthermore, because Bergquist was permitted to ask each of the abovementioned questions to ensure his own and the public's safety, Fox's answers to the questions were admissible. Therefore, Fox's challenge to the admission of the statements fails.