F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
JUL 11 2003
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 02-1255
RODGERICK LABON LACKEY, aka
Roderick Lackey,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
(D.C. NO. 01-CR-210-WM)
Madeline S. Cohen, Assistant Federal Public Defender (Michael G. Katz, Federal
Public Defender, with her on the briefs), Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-
Appellant.
Martha Ann Paluch, Assistant United States Attorney (John W. Suthers,
United States Attorney, and William L. Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney,
with her on the brief), Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before HARTZ and McKAY , Circuit Judges, and BRORBY , Senior Circuit
Judge.
HARTZ , Circuit Judge.
Defendant Rodgerick Labon Lackey appeals his conviction after trial for
possession of a firearm by a restricted person, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1). His sole issue on appeal concerns the denial of his motion to
suppress the firearm. He argues that police officers discovered the firearm
through an interrogation that violated Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
After Defendant’s arrest on a warrant, but prior to his receiving Miranda
warnings, officers asked him whether he had any guns or sharp objects on him.
He responded that there was a gun in the car he had just left. We affirm
Defendant’s conviction, holding that officers about to conduct a lawful frisk or
search of a suspect need not give Miranda warnings before asking the suspect
about the presence of dangerous objects on his person.
I. Factual Background
The relevant facts are not in dispute. On May 16, 2001, a woman contacted
the Colorado Springs Police Department (CSPD) to report that a man had fired
shots at her house. After some preliminary investigation, the police presented the
woman with a photo array, from which she identified Defendant. The CSPD
obtained a state arrest warrant for Defendant on felony charges of illegal
discharge of a firearm, menacing with a handgun, and possession of a weapon by
a previously convicted felon. The CSPD then contacted an agent of the federal
-2-
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) to obtain assistance in
apprehending Defendant.
On May 23 two CSPD officers and the ATF agent went to the parking lot of
an apartment building where Defendant was believed to be living, hoping to arrest
him as he arrived at or left the building. Shortly thereafter, the three officers saw
a man resembling Defendant approach a car matching the description of
Defendant’s car. The man opened the car’s hatchback and spent about a minute
moving things around inside the car.
The officers approached the man, displayed their badges, and identified
themselves. The man took a few steps away from the hatchback. One officer
asked him his name, and Defendant identified himself. Defendant was told that
he was under arrest on an outstanding warrant. Next, an officer asked Defendant,
“Do you have anything on you that would hurt me?” R, Vol. 5, at 47, 88.
Defendant responded, “What is this about? What is this about?” Id. at 44, 88.
An officer replied, “I will tell you about it in a minute,” and then handcuffed
Defendant. Id.
Once Defendant was handcuffed, but before he was patted down, an officer
asked, “Do you have any guns or sharp objects on you?” Defendant responded,
“No, I don’t have anything on me, but there was a gun in the car.” Id. at 47-48,
89. The officers looked into the car’s open hatchback and noticed a gun and its
-3-
magazine clip, both plainly visible. When an officer asked Defendant whether the
car was his, Defendant responded that it belonged to him and his wife. At the
officers’ request he granted consent to search the car. He then was frisked, but no
additional weapons were discovered.
Following the arrest, Defendant was transported to the ATF office, where
he received Miranda warnings for the first time. Defendant signed a written
waiver and gave a written statement denying his involvement in the May 16
shooting.
Defendant was later charged with possession of a firearm by a restricted
person, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He filed motions to suppress the
gun and the statements he made to the police officers at the arrest scene. The
district court denied the motions to suppress, finding that the officers’ questions
about whether Defendant had weapons or sharp objects on him were within the
public-safety exception to the Miranda requirement, see New York v. Quarles, 467
U.S. 649 (1984). The court also concluded that Defendant had voluntarily
consented to the search of the car, and that the search of the car was proper as a
search incident to a lawful arrest.
Defendant’s case proceeded to trial, where he was found guilty. This
appeal followed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
-4-
II. Discussion
Whether facts support an exception to the Miranda requirement is a
question of law. Because Defendant “challenges the district court's ultimate
ruling, not its underlying findings, . . . our review is de novo.” United States v.
Humphrey, 208 F.3d 1190, 1201 (10th Cir. 2000).
The sole issue on appeal is whether the officers violated Defendant’s
constitutional rights by asking him about the presence of guns or sharp objects on
his person after he was in custody but before he was informed of his Miranda
rights. Agreeing with the other circuit courts to address the issue, we hold that
the question was proper under the public-safety exception to Miranda set forth in
Quarles. See United States v. Padilla, 819 F.2d 952, 960-61 (10th Cir. 1987)
(applying Quarles to question of arrestee about the condition of persons inside a
house he had been shooting at).
In Quarles two police officers encountered a woman who informed them
that she had just been raped. 467 U.S. at 651-52. She told the officers that the
rapist had a gun and had recently entered a nearby grocery store. Id. The officers
entered the store, where they spotted a man matching the suspect’s description.
Id. at 652. Upon seeing the officers, the suspect fled. Id. After giving pursuit,
one of the officers, Frank Kraft, cornered the suspect and ordered him to stop and
put up his hands. Id. Officer Kraft frisked him, at which time he discovered that
-5-
the suspect was wearing an empty shoulder holster. Id. Officer Kraft handcuffed
the suspect and asked him where the gun was. Id. The suspect nodded to some
empty cartons and stated “the gun is over there.” Id. Officer Kraft proceeded to
the cartons, where he discovered a loaded .38 caliber pistol. Id. Officer Kraft
then formally placed the suspect under arrest and advised him of his Miranda
rights. Id.
The state trial court suppressed the suspect’s statement that “the gun is over
there,” ruling that it was obtained by a question improperly asked before the
suspect was informed of his Miranda rights. Id. at 652-53. The New York Court
of Appeals affirmed. After concluding that the suspect had been in “custody”
within the meaning of Miranda, it “declined to recognize an exigency exception to
the usual requirements of Miranda because it found no indication from Officer
Kraft’s testimony at the suppression hearing that his subjective motivation in
asking the question was to protect his own safety or the safety of the public.” Id.
at 653.
The Supreme Court reversed, holding that “on these facts there is a ‘public
safety’ exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a
suspect’s answers may be admitted into evidence.” Id. at 655. Observing that
“[u]ndoubtedly most police officers, if placed in Officer Kraft’s position, would
act out of a host of different, instinctive, and largely unverifiable motives—their
-6-
own safety, the safety of others, and perhaps as well the desire to obtain
incriminating evidence from the suspect,” id. at 656, the Court said that “the
availability of that exception does not depend upon the motivation of the
individual officers involved.” Id.
The Court reasoned that the protection of the Fifth Amendment privilege
provided by Miranda could not justify the risk to public safety. It wrote:
In such a situation, if the police are required to recite the familiar
Miranda warnings before asking the whereabouts of the gun, suspects
in Quarles' position might well be deterred from responding.
Procedural safeguards which deter a suspect from responding were
deemed acceptable in Miranda in order to protect the Fifth
Amendment privilege; when the primary social cost of those added
protections is the possibility of fewer convictions, the Miranda
majority was willing to bear that cost. Here, had Miranda warnings
deterred Quarles from responding to Officer Kraft's question about
the whereabouts of the gun, the cost would have been something more
than merely the failure to obtain evidence useful in convicting
Quarles. Officer Kraft needed an answer to his question not simply to
make his case against Quarles but to insure that further danger to the
public did not result from the concealment of the gun in a public area.
We conclude that the need for answers to questions in a situation
posing a threat to the public safety outweighs the need for the
prophylactic rule protecting the Fifth Amendment's privilege against
self-incrimination.
Id. at 657.
Although the Court noted that the public-safety exception could
theoretically diminish the clarity of Miranda, it minimized this concern, stating,
“We think police officers can and will distinguish almost instinctively between
-7-
questions necessary to secure their own safety or the safety of the public and
questions designed solely to elicit testimonial evidence from a suspect.” Id. at
658-59.
In our view, the reasoning of Quarles applies squarely to the circumstances
here. The focused question of the officers—“Do you have any guns or sharp
objects on you”—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.
It is irrelevant that the principal danger in this case was the risk of injury to
the officers or Defendant himself, rather than ordinary members of the “public.”
As the above-quoted passages from Quarles illustrate, the concern of the public-
safety doctrine extends beyond safety to civilians. The exception undoubtedly
extends to officers’ “questions necessary to secure their own safety.” Id. at 659;
cf. United States v. Holt, 264 F.3d 1215, 1221-26 (10th Cir. 2001) (en banc)
(concerns about officer safety justify routinely asking about presence of weapons
during traffic stop).
Indeed, in one significant respect an exception to Miranda can be better
justified in this case than in Quarles. Here, a responsive answer to the officers’
question would not, as a practical matter, incriminate a suspect. Because officers
-8-
have the right to, and will, search the person of an arrestee, they will learn soon
enough whether the arrestee is carrying a dangerous object. The purpose of the
question “Do you have any guns or sharp objects on you?” is not to acquire
incriminating evidence; it is solely to protect the officers, as well as the arrestee,
from physical injury. Thus, in this context requiring Miranda warnings does
precious little to protect the arrestee’s privilege against self-incrimination. The
risk of incrimination is limited to non-responsive answers (such as in this case,
when the suspect provides more information than requested), not a risk particularly
worthy of a prophylactic rule. Cf. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 302-03
(1980) (Miranda inapplicable when suspect’s incriminating comments came in
response to officers’ statements that could not have reasonably been expected to
elicit an incriminating response).
We note that in similar circumstances other circuit courts have held that the
public-safety exception applies. See United States v. Shea, 150 F.3d 44, 48 (1st
Cir. 1998) (pre-Miranda question asking arrested defendant whether he had any
weapons fell within the public-safety exception); United States v. Young, No. 02-
4465, 2003 WL 283189, at *1 (4th Cir. Feb. 11, 2003) (unpublished) (officer’s
pre-Miranda question, “do you have any sharp objects, knives, needles, or guns,”
was within public-safety exception); United States v. Webster, 162 F.3d 308, 332
(5th Cir. 1998) (“[T]he police acted constitutionally when they asked [the
-9-
defendant] whether he had any needles in his pockets that could injure them during
their pat down; such questioning, needed to protect the officers, does not
constitute interrogation under Miranda.”); United States v. Edwards, 885 F.2d 377,
384 (7th Cir. 1989) (public-safety exception applied to pre-Miranda question
asking arrested defendant whether he had a gun); United States v. Carrillo, 16
F.3d 1046, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 1994) (pre-Miranda question asking arrested
defendant whether he had any needles on him was within the public-safety
exception).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
-10-