supporting district court’s denial of suppression motion); see also Fed. R.CRiM. P. 12(d) (providing that “[w]hen factual issues are involved in deciding a motion, the court must state its essential findings on the record”); Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 543-44, 108 S.Ct. 2529, 101 L.Ed.2d 472 (1988) (remanding for more explicit findings to resolve a suppression motion). V For the foregoing reasons, the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1 . Lemons was also questioned by the officers immediately after the gun was found and later signed a written statement. The parties scope of the doctrine, neither this nor any other circuit has yet extended it as far as would be required to justify the gun’s seizure here. See, e.g., Gale, 952 F.2d at 1415 .(<HOLDING>); United States v. Dice, 200 F.3d 978, 986 (6th
holding that while search incident to arrest could not justify search in that case probable cause plus exigency justified search holding that sniff test of automobile trunk not a search requiring probable cause holding that drugs seized from defendants person and automobile trunk based on statements taken without miranda warnings would inevitably have been discovered in a search incident to arrest and a postimpoundment inventory search holding that contraband would have been inevitably discovered where agents conducted a warrantless search while obtaining a search warrant and later conducted a second legal search in which agents discovered contraband holding that although search of passenger compartment was legal search of trunk was not