context: [IT 23] Federal courts have held that the public safety exception applies to law enforcement questioning related to the location of a gassing generator or other methamphetamine manufacturing equipment.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 2007 ME 107, ¶¶ 29-30
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that questions about the location of a gassing generator and other equipment related to the production of methamph'etamine fall within the "protective sweep" exception to Miranda
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., United States v. Noonan, 745 F.3d 934, 938 (8th Cir.2014) (holding that the public safety exception applied when a deputy had probable cause to believe that a stopped driver was a methamphetamine manufacturer and the officer asked if a “one pot” was in the car to avoid being sprayed with toxic chemicals); United States v. King, 182 Fed.Appx. 88, 91 (3d Cir.2006) (holding that officers’ pre-Mi-randa questions concerning active methamphetamine production were within the public safety exception); see also State v. Bilynsky, 2007 ME 107, ¶¶ 29-30, 932 A.2d 1169 (holding that questions about the location of a gassing generator and other equipment related to the production of methamph'etamine fall within the “protective sweep” exception to Miranda).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 745 F.3d 934, 938
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that the public safety exception applied when a deputy had probable cause to believe that a stopped driver was a methamphetamine manufacturer and the officer asked if a "one pot" was in the car to avoid being sprayed with toxic chemicals
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., United States v. Noonan, 745 F.3d 934, 938 (8th Cir.2014) (holding that the public safety exception applied when a deputy had probable cause to believe that a stopped driver was a methamphetamine manufacturer and the officer asked if a “one pot” was in the car to avoid being sprayed with toxic chemicals); United States v. King, 182 Fed.Appx. 88, 91 (3d Cir.2006) (holding that officers’ pre-Mi-randa questions concerning active methamphetamine production were within the public safety exception); see also State v. Bilynsky, 2007 ME 107, ¶¶ 29-30, 932 A.2d 1169 (holding that questions about the location of a gassing generator and other equipment related to the production of methamph'etamine fall within the “protective sweep” exception to Miranda).