Vaidik, J.
Miranda warnings are subject to a public-safety exception. That is, Miranda warnings are not required when police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety. Bryan Gavin appeals his multiple convictions stemming from an apartment-complex shooting. Specifically, he argues that the trial court erred by admitting his statement to police about the location of the gun because he made the statement before being informed of his Miranda rights. Because the police officer’s question to Gavin about the location of the gun was reasonably prompted by a concern for Gavin’s three-year-old stepdaughter’s safety, we find that the trial court did not err in admitting Gavin’s statement. We therefore affirm Gavin’s convictions.
….
Dispatch broadcasted that there was an active shooting and gave a description of Gavin’s car. Several officers spotted a car that matched the description and pulled over Gavin at the Super Test gas station at the intersection of State Road 38 East and U.S. 52 in Lafayette. With their guns drawn, the officers approached Gavin’s car and ordered him out. Gavin “jumped” out the driver’s side and said there was a baby in the car. [Record citations omitted throughout.] Officer Adam Burton of the Lafayette Police Department ordered Gavin to the ground, where he was handcuffed. Officer Burton then conducted a pat down and found a box of ammunition in Gavin’s front sweatshirt pocket.
Because Officer Burton had located the box of ammunition and believed that a child was still inside the car, he asked Gavin “where the gun was.” Gavin answered that the gun “was in the car.” Another officer then retrieved J.M. from Gavin’s car. … A later search of Gavin’s car revealed a .40 caliber semi-automatic handgun underneath the passenger seat. The seven cartridge cases found throughout the apartment complex were later determined to have been fired from the gun found in Gavin’s car.
….
At trial, the State asked Officer Burton if Gavin had made any statements, and Officer Burton said he had asked Gavin where the gun was. At this point, defense counsel asked the trial court if he could ask Officer Burton “a couple foundational questions” about why he had asked Gavin where the gun was before Officer Burton was allowed to give Gavin’s answer. Officer Burton then explained that he had asked Gavin about the gun “because of finding the ammo. I wanted to make sure that if the child still is in the vehicle that . . . they weren’t able to get to the gun to possibly harm themselves.” Satisfied with this answer, defense counsel said, “I’m not going to object to that . . . question.” Officer Burton then testified that Gavin said the gun was in his car.
….
The State argues that even though Gavin made the statement about the location of the gun before being informed of his Miranda rights, the trial court properly admitted his statement under the public-safety exception to Miranda. …
… Miranda warnings are not required when police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety. [New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649,] 656 (1984). “[T]he need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to the public safety outweighs the need for the prophylactic rule protecting the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination.” Id. at 657. … [S]ee also Price v. State, 591 N.E.2d 1027, 1030 (Ind. 1992) (recognizing that the public-safety exception to Miranda exists when police officers “have an immediate concern for the safety of the general public [when] an armed weapon remain[s] undiscovered”).
We find that the public-safety exception to Miranda applies here, too. The evidence shows that the officers were conducting a “high[-]risk stop” because they were responding to a call of shots fired. After Officer Burton handcuffed Gavin and located the box of ammunition in his front sweatshirt pocket, he asked Gavin where the gun was because he “believed the child was still in the vehicle” and “wanted to make sure that if the child still is in the vehicle that . . . they weren’t able to get to the gun to possibly harm themselves.” Gavin answered that the gun was in his car. Because Officer Burton’s question to Gavin about the location of the gun was reasonably prompted by a concern for the safety of Gavin’s three-year-old stepdaughter, see Bailey v. State, 763 N.E.2d 998, 1002 (Ind. 2002) (“Though Officer Allender’s concern was not for the general public’s safety, as it was in Price and Quarles, it was for the safety of another possible victim. There is a fair amount of authority holding that questioning for the limited purposes of locating or aiding a possible victim falls within the ‘public safety exception’ to Miranda.”), we find that the trial court did not commit error, much less fundamental error, in admitting Gavin’s statement about the location of the gun.
Affirmed.
Robb, J., and Pyle, J., concur.