Search & seizure; Motion to suppress; Whether defendant’s Miranda rights were violated; Whether the protective sweep of his motel room violated the Fourth Amendment; Whether a witness’s testimony about a firearm was “unfairly prejudicial” under FRE 403; Lack of proper notice the witness would testify; FRE 404(b)(3); Sentencing; Application of the four-level enhancement for using or possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense (USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)); Procedural reasonableness of a consecutive sentence imposed for violating the conditions of supervised release

The court held that defendant-Lester was not entitled to Miranda warnings where an officer’s question was not an interrogation and the question was permissible under the “public safety” exception. Further, there was no Fourth Amendment violation. The court also rejected his challenges to admission of a witness’s testimony and to his sentencing. He was convicted of FIP of a firearm. On appeal, he first argued that an officer questioned him without first giving him Miranda warnings. When patting him down, an officer asked Lester if there was “anything else on you, any other drugs, anything that would stick or harm me.” Lester answered that there was only some marijuana in his room. He asserted that all evidence from the search of his motel room should be suppressed, including a .40 caliber pistol. But the court held that Miranda did not apply because there was no interrogation. The question merely asked for information the officer was already entitled to learn in a search incident to Lester’s arrest. While Lester responded to the “question with self-incriminating evidence about something that” was not on his person, “an interaction doesn’t transform into an ‘interrogation’ merely because a suspect voluntarily offers an ‘unexpected and unresponsive’ answer.” The court added that even if the question was an interrogation, it would be covered under the public safety exception. Further, the gun was not subject to suppression where Lester’s answer was voluntary. The court also rejected his claim that the protective sweep of his motel room violated the Fourth Amendment where “there was an independent source for the fruits of the search[.]” Next, Lester objected for the first time that a witness’s testimony about his possession of the gun was unfairly prejudicial. But the court explained that the “temporal proximity” of her observation to his arrest made her testimony more probative than prejudicial. Further, he did not show plain error related to the fact he was not given notice she would testify until right before she took the stand. Lester’s sentencing challenges also failed. The court found that the four-level enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) was supported by the evidence. And it held that the district court’s decision to impose a 17-month consecutive sentence for violating his supervised-release conditions related to his prior ammunition-possession conviction “was procedurally adequate.” Affirmed.