United States v. Simmons, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 21661

Simmons, a convicted felon, was charged with possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
NYPD recovered a 9mm handgun and magazine from Simmons's Bronx bedroom on November 10, 2008 after Vaz reported the weapon during a dispute.
District court denied Simmons's suppression motion, ruling that statements were admissible under the public safety exception and the gun seizure was justified by exigent circumstances.
On appeal, Simmons challenges (i) the Miranda issue—whether pre-arrest statements without warnings were admissible, and (ii) the warrantless bedroom search under the Fourth Amendment.
The Second Circuit majority holds the public safety exception justified the initial questioning and statements but the warrantless bedroom search violated the Fourth Amendment; the dissent argues otherwise on consent/exigency.
The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Public safety exception admissibility of statements	Government: statements admissible under public safety exception.	Simmons: statements should be excluded as Miranda violation and not saved by exception.	Statements admissible under public safety exception; physical evidence admissible as result.
Fourth Amendment warrantless bedroom search	Government: exigent circumstances justified the search.	Simmons: no exigent circumstances; search not justified without a warrant.	Warrantless bedroom search violated the Fourth Amendment; reversed on this issue.

New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (U.S. 1984) (public safety exception to Miranda)
Estrada, 430 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 2005) (limits on pre-Miranda questioning; totality of circumstances)
Newton, 369 F.3d 659 (2d Cir. 2004) (public safety exception in firearm case; objective risk assessment)
Klump, 536 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2008) (exigent circumstances standard; clear error review)
MacDonald, 916 F.2d 766 (2d Cir. 1990) (exigent circumstances; totality of the circumstances test)
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1980) (home entry presumptively unreasonable absent exigent circumstances)
King, 131 S. Ct. 1849 (U.S. 2011) (exigencies justify warrantless searches when immediate need exists)
Ravich, 421 F.2d 1196 (2d Cir. 1970) (nighttime searches; intrusive nature of late-night entries)
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1969) (scope of search incident to arrest; proximity to arrestee)
Place, 660 F.2d 44 (2d Cir. 1981) (screening the dangers and need for warrants in seizures)
Graham v. United States, N/A (N/A) (not cited in this excerpt; placeholder not included)