question “is there anything else you want to tell us about,” falls within this “narrow” exception to Miranda. Quarles, 467 U.S. at 658, 104 S.Ct. 2626. In Quarles, the police pursued a rape suspect into a supermarket. The victim had told the officers that the suspect was armed, and when they apprehended the suspect, they found him wearing an empty shoulder holster. Quarles, 467 U.S. at 651-52, 104 S.Ct. 2626. Without giving the Miranda warnings, the officers asked the suspect where the gun was. Quarles eventually told the officers, who retrieved the gun from among some empty cartons. Quarles, 467 U.S. at 652, 104 S.Ct. 2626. In reversing the lower court’s decision, the Supreme Court held that: (1) a narrow public safety exception to Miranda existed; and (2) the poss -78 (E.D.N.Y.2002) (<HOLDING>). The application of the Quarles public safety
holding that the exception applies to statement by handcuffed defendant giving location of a gun in an apartment where officers found loose ammunition iri a closet and other members of the household including children were present holding that exception applies to statement by handcuffed parolee concerning whereabouts of a gun in an apartment where parole officers had specific information from a third party that a gun was likely present in the apartment holding that the twolevel enhancement was appropriate where the gun cash and a drug ledger were found in one apartment and the drugs were found in a different apartment in the same building holding that statements by defendant and apartment manager that defendant lived in the apartment where drugs were found demonstrated his control over the apartment even though no documents personal effects or keys were found holding that exception applies to statement by handcuffed defendant as to location of a gun in an apartment even where most of the other adults in the apartment were handcuffed because even assuming the executing officers believed that the residence was secure  the circumstances were still sufficiently dangerous