was handcuffed. There were at least two officers present with him. The area beneath the mattress, whether Fisher was 3 or 4 feet away, or 15 feet, was simply not easily accessible to a handcuffed and guarded man, if we take a logical and reasonable approach to the word “accessible.” We note that if, on the same facts, the district court, after judging the credibility of the witnesses, had come to the conclusion that the weapon was accessible and should be allowed into evidence, and the defendant had appealed, we are not sure what our conclusion on appeal would have been. We do not need to address that hypothetical. But what we can say on appeal is that giving proper deference to the district court’s assessment of the credibility of oral testimony, we cannot say that the inn.App.1998) (<HOLDING>). Fisher argues that police lacked probable
recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public holding that public meeting did not satisfy public participation requirement because public did not receive adequate notice recognizing the public interest exception recognizing a public safety exception to the requirement that miranda warnings be given in order to use a suspects statement as evidence against him at trial holding public safety exception to miranda warning requirement did not apply where there was no evidence gun had been left in public place