United States v. Liddell
517 F.3d 1007
8th Cir.
2008
Check Treatment
Docket

*4 Supreme Court upheld the admission into GRUENDER, Circuit Judge, evidence Quarles’ statement because concurring. long as the gun was concealed “Mo some- Based our circuit’s precedents, I con- where in the supermarket, with its actual cur the opinion of the However, Court. unknown, whereabouts it obviously posed I write separately to explain my concern more than one to the public safe- that our decisions applying safe- ty; an accomplice might make it,of use ty exception to Miranda strayed customer or employee might later come Court’s tethering of the upon it.” 657, at 104 S.Ct. 2626. The exception to the existence of exigent cir- Supreme Court stated that “[t]he excep- cumstances.3 tion will not be difficult for police officers

As an alternative rationale in Williams to apply because in each case it will be and then Luker, followed in this court held circumscribed the exigency justi- which safety exception to Mi- fies it.” at 104 S.Ct. 2626. Exigent means "[Requiring ed.2004). ac- aid; tion or urgent.” Black’s Law Dictionary him. and awakened boardinghouse ozco’s fo- opinion, Throughout 1095. Without situation. urgency cused in- warnings, the 657-58, giving 104 S.Ct. See, id. e.g., commit- a murder about in the terrogated ... Orozco place (“We decline consider, asked having to hours earlier. four ted position untenable it the scene seconds, whether present had been he a matter often gun ask the owned he them society shooting, serves best The defen- the Miranda without was located. questions necessary where at the probative present whatever he render admitted warnings dant inadmissible, or for and that pistol uncover they scene, he owned order washing machine in the give located pistol of evidence admissibility boardinghouse. preserve in a backroom damage possibly but statements might uncover all the held that Orozco that evi- ability to obtain destroy their Id. at suppressed. have been should situation volatile and neutralize dence Court stated: them.”); id. at confronting about however, questions Orozco, impor- (“[W]e recognize here *5 investigatory; clearly were the police guide to rule a workable tance objective- an to way relate in did not and time only limited have officers, who police the protect need to ly reasonable the balance and reflect to expertise dan- any immediate public the in interests involved individual and social weapon. the with ger associated they con- circumstances specific the requiring exigency there was short not ex- did front.”). Court Supreme beyond the officers action immediate trained that a any concern press a to solve expeditiously normal need the in other- an weapon discovering a officer crime. serious justify would environment wise secured S.Ct. n. 104 Quarles, 467 U.S. Rather, exception. applying added). po- Because (emphasis exception that express did Court com- that Orozco suspected reasonably lice “might later public when the apply would existed gun, there with murder thereby mitted creat- weapon],” upon [the come weapon that possibility situation. dangerous realistic immediately ing an boardinghouse. somewhere hidden 2626. S.Ct. Id. at pub- believed Court Supreme Had stated further Court to situations applied lic weapons upon happen could officers where “questions rea- ask when applies them mishandle[ ] “unexpectedly aby concern sonably prompted excep- way,” then some de- “questions not to safety” in Orozco. applicable been tion would evidence testimonial to elicit solely signed indi- did not Court However, Quarles suspect.” Id. from a of a trained danger the inherent cate However, clarified it- weapon discovering officer distin- situation of the exigency application justify the self types questions. these guish between Quarles, the I read As exception. illustrate To 8,104 n. at 659 to Miranda compared point, to the (1) only when 324, 89 Texas, v. Orozco with (2) exists, or or the (1969). Id. In 1095, 22 L.Ed.2d come later may Or- entered Orozco, police officers four weapon thereby create an immediately might the officers have unexpectedly en- dangerous situation. the public countered or a weapon hidden safety exception to Miranda would not in Liddell’s vehicle. situations where officers could Although the First agrees with happen upon a weapon “unexpectedly or precedents, our three other circuits do not. mishandle[] way,” in some unless Compare Fox, United 393 F.3d of exigency presented. is (1st Cir.2004) (applying the public safe record this case does not estab- ty exception on similar facts as in this lish the existence of exigent circumstances. case), with United States v. Mobley, 40 Here, the police had removed Liddell from (4th F.3d 688 Cir.1994), United States v. vehicle, his him, handcuffed conducted a Raborn, Cir.1989), pat-down search, placed him into their States v. 483 F.3d 425 patrol car. After the officers had secured (6th Cir.2007). In Mobley, agents arrested both Liddell car, and his they began defendant his front door and amade searching his Upon vehicle. finding an security sweep of apartment, which unloaded .38 caliber revolver under the revealed that Mobley was alone. 40 F.3d front the officers asked anything at 690. Mobley With outside apart else the car hurt could them. After ment, the agents him asked any discussion Liddell, the officers com- thing in apartment could be of danger pleted the search of Liddell’s car. Al- agents who would be conducting the though the search aof that poten- vehicle search. The Fourth Circuit held that the tially contains a weapon loaded may well public safety exception to Miranda did inherently be dangerous, the record does *6 apply because the had already not se establish that danger immediate cured the apartment and existed as determined that a result of possible the presence no one else present. such 693; a weapon in see Liddell’s ear or that — also United might Melvin, have later Fed. upon come a -, Appx weapon. There WL was no evidence, for in- Cir. stance, 13, 2007) July curiam) (per supporting the necessity (relying of an im- on Mobley, mediate search or court continued held that search of by safety vehicle officers, exception did not apply either because of where offi questioned cers immediate Mobley concern or about because whether he had vehicle was to a weapon be left in his unsecured car when the car roadside where the secured and public might already gain heading ac- to the im lot). cess to pound any weapon left in Raborn, it. Because upon being Liddell was arrested stopped for driving agents, DEA while Raborn exited his barred, truck, there was no immediate danger pistol removed from his holster that Liddell would placed be allowed to return it inside the vehicle. 872 F.2d his car where he might have access agents to a handcuffed Raborn hidden weapon. Furthermore, and the there was other passenger placed that ground officers could outside. Unable to locate safely impound and tow gun Liddell’s car after a search of the front order to conduct a search of it at a later one of the officers asked Raborn where he time. Based on the record developed in had placed it. Raborn replied that court, district safety concern was under the seat cover. The Fifth Cir was not related to any exigent circum- cuit stated that “[the vehicle] had already stances but rather limited to the fact that been seized and only difficult is It truck. to the access public-safety that therefore, find Finally, at 595. applies.”

exception that has held Sixth only to Miranda applies (or re have might

“(1) the defendant (cid:127) . (cid:127) (2) ... had) weapon,

cently have ac gain might than other

someone harm inflict weapon and that

cess F.3d

it.” record limited and the

Based the public us, conclude I would

before to no evidence is there because a result as existed weapon such presence possible have might

Liddell’s Nonethe- weapon. such come

later Mi- exception to

less, the fact because

randa encoun- unexpectedly might hidden weapon

tered justi- alone is vehicle

Liddell’s under application

fy Luker.

Williams *7 America, STATES

UNITED

Appellee, HUGHES, Appellant.

Roy T. 07-2213.

No. Appeals,

Eighth Circuit. 11, 2007. Dec.

Submitted: 25, 2008. Feb.

Filed: