have construed Quarles reveals a strong majority tendency to apply the public safety exception in situations that go far beyond the ‘loose weapon’ scenario of Quarles and [United States v. Khalil, 214 F.3d 111 (2d Cir.2000)].” Jones, 154 F.Supp.2d at 626-29. Further, this Court also shares Judge Lynch’s concern that Quarles should not be interpreted by courts to establish an exception that “swallow[s] the rule.” Therefore, this Court adopts the Jones framework for application of the public safety exception, namely that the “doctrine requires, at a minimum, that the authorities have some real basis to believe that weapons are present, and some specific reason to believe that the weapon’s undetected presence poses a danger to the police or to the public.” Jones, 154 F.Supp.2d at 628-29 (<HOLDING>); accord United States v. Reyes, 249 F.Supp.2d
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 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 holding direct testimony tying a defendant to a gun was not required when the gun was found in the defendants truck and when the defendant had both ammunition for the gun and a rack in which it could have been kept 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 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