Print this Page
Case Basics
Docket No. 
New York
(Argued the cause for the petitioner)
(Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)
(Argued the cause for the respondent)
Facts of the Case 

After receiving the description of Quarles, an alleged assailant, a police officer entered a supermarket, spotted him, and ordered him to stop. Quarles stopped and was frisked by the officer. Upon detecting an empty shoulder holster, the officer asked Quarles where his gun was. Quarles responded. The officer then formally arrested Quarles and read him his Miranda rights.


Should the Court suppress Quarles's statement about the gun and the gun itself because the officer had failed at the time to read Quarles his Miranda rights?

Decision: 5 votes for New York, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Miranda Warnings

No. The Court held that there is a "public safety" exception to the requirement that officers issue Miranda warnings to suspects. Since the police officer's request for the location of the gun was prompted by an immediate interest in assuring that it did not injure an innocent bystander or fall into the hands of a potential accomplice to Quarles, his failure to read the Miranda warning did not violate the Constitution.

Cite this Page
NEW YORK v. QUARLES. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 29 July 2015. <>.
NEW YORK v. QUARLES, The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, (last visited July 29, 2015).
"NEW YORK v. QUARLES," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, accessed July 29, 2015,