that an accomplice or member of the public could discover the abandoned gun in the supermarket required the application of the exception to the facts of the case. Quarles, 467 U.S. at 655-56, 104 S.Ct. 2626. While there are no controlling Second Circuit decisions, there is a disagreement among circuits that have examined the issue as to the breadth of the Miranda public safety exception, and the application of Quarles beyond the immediate facts of that case. In United States v. Jones, 154 F.Supp.2d 617 (S.D.N.Y.2001), District Judge Lynch comprehensively surveyed the application of Quarles in different circuits, an exercise that will not be repeated by this Court except to adopt Judge Lynch’s conclusion that “[a] broad survey of decisions by those circuits t 7, 282 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Newton, 181 F.Supp.2d 157,
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 no seizure occurred where officer approached the suspect at the bus stop mentioned that he was investigating a bank robbery asked the suspect what he was doing in the area and for his identification and otherwise gave no indication that the suspect was not free to leave or to refuse to respond to questioning holding that a limited search of the outer clothing of a suspect for weapons is reasonable where the officer has a reasonable articulable basis for believing that the suspect may be armed and presently dangerous holding that exception does not apply to statement made by suspect as to the presence of a gun and drugs where statement was in response to officer asking without specific information whether suspect had any dangerous objects on his person holding that allowing suspect to speak with his wife in the presence of a police officer was not interrogation as it did not fall into any of these categories