Skip to content
Name: Allen v. Roe
Case #: 01-17010
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 09/24/2002
Subsequent History: Cert. den. 2/24/03
Summary

Appellant shot his son, and when police officers arrived at the scene, made several incriminating statements in response to their questions about the whereabouts of the gun used. Appellant moved to suppress the statements, which were made without benefit of Miranda warnings. The trial court ruled that the public safety exception of New York v. Quarles applied, and denied the motion. Appellant was convicted of first degree murder, and the state appellate court affirmed his conviction. Here, the Ninth Circuit denied appellant’s habeas petition. As in Quarles, the gun was missing, and it was reasonably possible that anyone could have found it and used it. The danger posed did not dissipate with time, and it was therefore objectively reasonable for the officer to believe that there was a public safety need to question appellant about the whereabouts of the gun. Miranda warnings were therefore not required.