Caldwell testified that she was in the bedroom when he arrived, id. at 213. As Goree points out, there was no testimony as to how Lemons got from one place to the other and, particularly, whether the police themselves moved her. As Goree also correctly notes, the district court made no finding at all about Lemons’ location during the course of the search, let alone as to whether she s exception should be straightforward once the factual discrepancies discussed below are resolved, we defer a ruling on the more novel inevitable discovery claim unless and until it becomes necessary to resolve this D.C.Cir.1999) (noting that "the presence of one weapon may justifiably arouse concern that there may be more in the vicinity"); United States v. Abdul-Saboor, 85 F.3d 664, 670 (D.C.Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). 7 . Nor does he dispute that a warrantless
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 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 having already uncovered two guns and a magazine the arresting officers could well anticipate that other weapons were stowed throughout the apartment perhaps even within the area in which the defendant was seated holding that evidence of the defendants connection to the guns suggests possession of the drugs found next to the guns holding that a search of the plaintiffs residence was reasonable within the meaning of the fourth amendment where an informant provided information to the beloit police department that there were or might be guns in the plaintiffs apartment