ÿWPC/ …# VUNa %¯ 0DµU:ùw@3 4s ‡ – 0Þ 0¡a U: 0J< U:† 0TÀ 0^ 0hr 0rÚ 0|L 0†È 0N 1uÞU,S 0dbãU,ë BU *4B)^DC‡ AMÊ D34J{~ 0@ùv~9vÓ· AOŠÆÙ 0DŸ D/ã B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀäÌÀÀÌÀä0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular X(r+$¡¡Ò4°ÒÒ„°Ò@"Arial Regular DDVØeÓ€z!úÿÿú, ú3|x(s(2gd$¤¤Ý ƒr+!ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÝ  ÝÒ44ÒÒ„„ÒÔ€ ôwôX XÔà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("WV$Ô€ôèêôXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôb´ôôôèêÔÔ€X'?Xôôb´Ô,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô+•ŸzAZ‹"Arial Regular2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ- ù-< Œ 9p`(Monaco d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ%%%%'ÿÿdxd *Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€&ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òSeptemberÏ16,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó qÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€&ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€&ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€In€òòStansburyóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€characterized€the€ð ðfocusðð€analysis€inÏòòHartmanóó,€as€ð ðincorrect.ððÌ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€$$X„d&ÓÑ#€$$Xd#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ€ ÑÑ7€™XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  Ñà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURTÏOF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€ò òòòFORÏPUBLICATIONó óóóÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àò òFiled:ÏSeptember€16,€1996ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellant,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€€ÏDECATUR€CRIMINALÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€ÏC.€CREED€McGINLEY,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà à€€€€ÏJUDGEÌJOE€L.€ANDERSON,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellee.à àà àà à)à àNo.Ï02„S„01„9511„CC„00121ÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€Appellant:à àà àà àà àà àForÏAppellee:ó óóóÌÌCharles€W.ÏBursonà àà àà àà àà àRichard€B.ÏFieldsÌAttorney€General€&ÏReporterà àà àà àMemphis,€TennesseeÌÙ€€ÙÙ€€ÙßL€)+(;+'h|`U` à. `€€LßÌMichael€E.€MooreÌSolicitor€GeneralÌÌGordon€W.€SmithÌAssociate€Solicitor€GeneralÌÌEugene€J.€HoneaÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌNashville,€TennesseeÌÌJerry€WallaceÌAssistant€District€AttorneyÌDecaturville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌò òÔ€&„Ôà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÔ€&XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDED.à àà àà àà àà àANDERSON,€J.Ç›ÓÓà àWe€granted€this€appeal€to€clarify€the€standards€by€which€courts€determineÏwhether€a€person€being€questioned€by€law€enforcement€officers€is€ð ðin€custody,ððÏand€therefore€entitled€to€the€warnings€mandated€by€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384ÏU.S.€436,€86€S.€Ct.€1602,€16€L.€Ed.€2d€694€(1966).€€ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€the€defendant€was€indicted€for€arson€after€being€questionedÏby€an€arson€investigator€and€having€given€a€statement.€€The€defendant€movedÏto€suppress€the€statement€because€no€òòMirandaóó€warnings€were€given.€ÏEmphasizing€that€the€defendant€ð ðwas€a€suspect€at€the€time€of€his€interrogationððÏand€that€the€process€had€ð ðshifted€from€the€investigatory€to€the€accusatory€stage,ððÏthe€trial€court€concluded€the€defendant€was€"in€custody"€at€the€time€of€hisÏinterrogation€and€granted€the€defendantððs€motion€to€suppress€the€statementÏsince€no€òòMirandaóó€warnings€were€given.€€In€a€split€decision,€the€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals€affirmed€the€suppression€of€defendant's€statement,€with€the€majorityÏconcluding€that€the€ð ðfocusðð€of€the€investigation€is€relevant€to€the€determination€ofÏwhether€the€suspect€was€ð ðin€custody.ðð€€ÌÌà àWe€have€concluded€that€in€determining€whether€an€individual€is€ð ðinÏcustodyðð€and€entitled€to€òòMirandaóó€warnings,€the€relevant€inquiry€is€whether,Ïunder€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€a€reasonable€person€in€the€suspectððsÍposition€would€consider€himself€or€herself€deprived€of€freedom€of€movement€toÏa€degree€associated€with€a€formal€arrest.€€The€test€is€objective€from€theÏviewpoint€of€the€suspect,€and€the€unarticulated,€subjective€view€of€lawÏenforcement€officials€that€the€individual€being€questioned€is€or€is€not€a€suspectÏdoes€not€bear€upon€the€question.€€Accordingly,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals'Ïjudgment€is€reversed,€and€the€cause€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€forÏapplication€of€this€standard€to€the€facts€in€this€case.ÌÌà@ àòòò òBACKGROUNDóóó óÌà àThe€defendant,€Joe€Anderson,€was€indicted€for€arson€on€February€15,Ï1993,€along€with€co„defendant,€David€Hudgens.€€Anderson€filed€a€pretrialÏmotion€to€suppress€a€statement€he€had€made€to€an€arson€investigator€onÏFebruary€2,€1993.€€A€hearing€was€held€on€the€motion,€and€the€proof€isÏsummarized€as€follows:€ÌÌà àEarly€in€the€arson€investigation,€co„defendant€Hudgens€gave€a€statementÏto€Johnny€Hayes,€the€arson€investigator€from€the€State€Fire€Marshall's€office,Ïwhich€implicated€the€defendant.€€Thereafter,€the€State€Fire€Marshallððs€officeÏwired€Hudgens€in€an€attempt€to€elicit€an€incriminating€statement€from€Anderson.€ÏThat€attempt€failed.ÌÌà àOn€February€2,€1993,€Hayes€went€to€Andersonððs€home€and€askedÏAnderson€to€come€to€the€sheriffððs€office€to€give€a€statement.€€Anderson€agreedÏand,€accompanied€by€his€wife,€he€drove€himself€to€the€sheriffððs€office.€€While€hisÏwife€waited€in€the€front€of€the€building,€Anderson€was€taken€into€an€office€andÏquestioned€by€Hayes.€€Investigator€Pollard€of€the€Fire€Marshallððs€office€and€JohnÏMartin€of€the€Sheriffððs€office€were€also€present€during€the€questioning.€€HayesÏadvised€Anderson€that€he€was€not€under€arrest€and€that€he€could€leave€at€anyÏtime,€but€he€did€not€advise€Anderson€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€before€talking€withÏhim.€€Anderson€at€no€time€attempted€to€leave€or€requested€an€attorney.€€He€gaveÏa€statement€which€was€reduced€to€writing€by€Hayes,€and€signed€by€AndersonÏafter€he€reviewed€it€for€mistakes.€€After€advising€Anderson€that€criminal€chargesÏmight€be€brought€against€him€at€a€later€date,€Hayes€said€he€told€Anderson€thatÏhe€and€his€wife€were€free€to€leave.€€ÌÌà àIn€response€to€questioning€from€the€trial€court,€Hayes€stated€that€arsonÏinvestigators€considered€Anderson€a€suspect€at€the€time€of€his€interrogation,€butÏthey€did€not€inform€Anderson€of€their€belief.€€€A€warrant€for€Andersonððs€arrestÏwas€issued€on€February€5,€1993,€three€days€after€the€interview€occurred.€€ÌÌà àBased€upon€the€above€evidence,€the€trial€court€sustained€AndersonððsÏmotion€to€suppress,€holding€that€the€defendant€was€clearly€ð ða€suspect€at€theÏtime€of€his€interrogation€and€the€process€had€shifted€from€the€investigatory€to€theÏaccusatory€stage.ðð€€ÌÌà àIn€a€split€decision,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed.€€Special€JudgeÏGasaway€wrote€the€lead€opinion,€which€concluded€that€òòMirandaóó€warnings€areÏrequired€when€ð ðthe€fine€line€of€distinction€between€the€investigatory€stage€andÏthe€accusatory€stage€has€been€crossed.ðð€€Then€Judge€White€concurred€in€theÏresult€suppressing€the€statement€but€concluded€that€the€progress€of€theÏinvestigation€is€not€determinative,€and€is€only€one€of€the€factors€to€consider€inÏdetermining€whether,€under€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€a€person€is€"inÏcustody."€€Judge€Hayes€dissented,€stating€that€the€determination€of€whether€aÏperson€is€ð ðin€custodyðð€does€not€turn€upon€whether€the€person€was€the€ð ðfocusðð€ofÏa€criminal€investigation,€but€is€to€be€determined€by€inquiring€whether,€under€theÏtotality€of€the€circumstances,€a€reasonable€person€in€the€suspectððs€positionÏwould€have€felt€deprived€of€his€or€her€freedom€of€movement€to€a€degreeÏassociated€with€a€formal€arrest.€€Applying€that€standard,€Judge€HayesÏconcluded€that€Anderson€was€not€in€custody€when€he€gave€the€statement.ÌÌà àWe€granted€the€Stateððs€application€for€permission€to€appeal€to€clarify€theÏstandard€by€which€courts€determine€whether€a€person€being€questioned€by€lawÏenforcement€officers€is€ð ðin€custody,ðð€and€entitled€to€òòMirandaóó€warnings.€€For€theÏreasons€that€follow,€we€reverse€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€decision.ÌÌà@ àòòò òCUSTODYóóó óÌà àIn€this€Court,€the€State€argues€that€the€trial€court€and€the€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals€erred€in€relying€upon€the€ð ðfocusðð€test€to€determine€whether€AndersonÏwas€in€custody.€€The€State€asserts€that€the€"focus"€test€has€been€abandoned€byÏrecent€United€States€Supreme€Court€cases,€as€well€as€decisions€of€this€Court.ÌÌà àThe€defendant,€Anderson,€argues€that€under€òòState€v.€Morrisóó,€456€S.W.2dÏ840€(Tenn.€1970),€a€State€Supreme€Court€decision€which€has€not€beenÏoverruled,€the€progress€of€the€investigation€at€the€time€of€the€interrogation€is€anÏappropriate€factor€to€consider€when€determining€whether€a€person€is€in€custodyÏand€entitled€to€òòMirandaóó€warnings.ÌÌà àWe€begin€our€analysis€of€this€issue€with€€òòMirandaóó,€in€which€the€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Court€held€that€a€defendantððs€statements€made€during€theÏcourse€of€custodial€police€interrogation€are€inadmissible€as€evidence€in€aÍcriminal€case€unless€the€State€establishes€that€the€defendant€was€advised€ofÏcertain€constitutional€rights€and€waived€those€rights.€€Prior€to€custodialÏinterrogation,€òòMirandaóó€requires€that€the€police€inform€the€person€beingÏquestioned€that€(a)€he€has€the€right€to€remain€silent;€(b)€any€statement€madeÏmay€be€used€against€him;€(c)€he€has€the€right€to€the€presence€of€an€attorney;Ïand€(d)€if€he€can€not€afford€an€attorney,€one€will€be€appointed€for€him€prior€toÏquestioning,€if€he€so€desires.€€òòIdóó.,€384€U.S.€at€444,€86€S.€Ct.€at€1612.ÌÌà àð ðCustodial€interrogationðð€was€defined€by€the€òòMirandaóó€Court€asÏð ðquestioning€initiated€by€law€enforcement€officers€after€a€person€has€been€takenÏinto€custody€or€otherwise€deprived€of€his€freedom€of€action€in€any€significantÏway.ðð€€òòMirandaóó,€384€U.S.€at€444,€86€S.€Ct.€at€1612.€ÌÌà àAfter€the€òòMirandaóó€decision€in€1966,€many€courts€had€difficulty€discerningÏwhether€specific€factual€scenarios€fell€within€those€broad€general€definitions.€€ToÏfacilitate€the€determination,€courts€began€to€enumerate€factors€to€aid€in€theÏassessment.€€For€example,€this€Court€in€1970€in€òòMorrisóó€stated€that€courtsÏgenerally€must€consider€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€in€deciding€whether€aÏperson€is€subjected€to€ð ðcustodial€interrogation,ðð€and€listed€five€factors€itÏconsidered€pertinent€to€the€question:ÌÌà8 à1.à0 àThe€nature€of€the€interrogator.Ìà0 à2.à0 àThe€nature€of€the€suspect.Ìà0 à3.à0 àThe€time€and€place€of€the€interrogation.Ìà0 à4.à0 àThe€nature€of€the€interrogation.Ìà0 à5.à0 àThe€progress€of€the€investigation€at€the€time€of€the€interrogation.ÌÌòòMorrisóó,€456€S.W.2d€at€842.€€€In€deciding€to€suppress€the€statements€in€this€case,Ïthe€trial€court€and€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€focused€on€the€last€factorÏmentioned€in€òòMorrisó󀄄€the€progress€of€the€investigation€at€the€time€of€theÏinterrogation.€€In€recent€years,€however,€that€factor€has€been€rejected€by€bothÏthe€United€States€Supreme€Court€and€this€Court.ÌÌà àFor€example,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€emphasized€that€òòMirandaóóÏimplicitly€defined€ð ðfocus,ðð€for€its€purposes,€as€ð ðquestioning€initiated€by€lawÏenforcement€officers€after€a€person€has€been€taken€into€custody€or€otherwiseÏdeprived€of€his€freedom€of€action€in€any€significant€way.ðð€€òòMirandaóó,€384€U.S.€atÏ444,€86€S.€Ct.€at€1612.€€The€Supreme€Court€has€refused€to€accept€the€notionÏthat€a€person€is€ð ðin€custodyðð€merely€because€the€person€was€a€suspect€whenÏinterviewed€by€law€enforcement€officials.€€òòBeckwith€v.€United€Statesóó,€425€U.S.Í341,€96€S.€Ct.€1612,€48€L.€Ed.€2d€1€(1976).€€Instead,€in€òòCalifornia€v.€Beheleróó,€463ÏU.S.€1121,€1125,€103€S.€Ct.€3517,€3520,€77€L.€Ed.€2d€1275€(1983),€the€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Court€articulated€a€more€precise€standard€by€stating€that€aÏperson€is€in€custody€for€purposes€of€òòMirandaóó,€only€if€there€has€been€"a€formalÏarrest€or€restraint€on€freedom€of€movement€of€the€degree€associated€with€aÏformal€arrest.ððÌÌà àLater,€in€òòBerkemer€v.€McCartyóó,€468€U.S.€420,€442,€104€S.€Ct.€3138,€3151,Ï82€L.€Ed.€2d€317€(1984),€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€stated€that€whether€aÏperson€is€in€custody€depends€upon€ð ðhow€a€reasonable€man€in€the€suspectððsÏposition€would€have€understood€his€situation.ðð€€The€reasonable€person€test€isÏappropriate,€since,€unlike€a€subjective€test,€it€ð ðis€not€solely€dependent€either€onÏthe€self„serving€declarations€of€the€police€officers€or€the€defendant€nor€does€itÏplace€upon€the€police€the€burden€of€anticipating€the€frailties€or€idiosyncracies€ofÏevery€person€whom€they€question.ðð€€òòBerkemeróó,€468€U.S.€at€442,€n.€35,€104€S.ÏCt.€at€3151,€n.€35€(quoting€òòPeople€v.€P.óó,€233€N.E.2d€255,€260€(N.Y.€1967)).€€ÌÌà àThe€reasonable€person€objective€test€was€further€explained,€and€theÏð ðfocusðð€factor€completely€abolished,€by€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€in€theÍrecent€case€of€òòStansbury€v.€Californiaóó,€511€U.S.€318,€114€S.€Ct.€1526,€128€L.ÏEd.€2d€293€(1994).€€ÌÌà àIn€òòStansburyóó,€the€Supreme€Court€reiterated€that€ð ðthe€ultimate€inquiry€isÏsimply€whether€there€was€a€formal€arrest€or€restraint€on€freedom€of€movement€ofÏthe€degree€associated€with€a€formal€arrest.ðð€€In€evaluating€that€inquiry,€courtsÏmust€consider€the€totality€of€the€objective€circumstances€surrounding€theÏinterrogation,€ð ðnot€the€subjective€views€harbored€by€either€the€interrogatingÏofficers€or€the€person€being€questioned.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€511€U.S.€at€___,€114€S.€Ct.€atÏ1529.ÌÌà àThe€Court€emphasized€that€ð ð[o]ur€cases€make€clear,€in€no€uncertainÏterms,€that€any€inquiry€into€whether€the€interrogating€officers€have€focused€theirÏsuspicions€upon€the€individual€being€questioned€(assuming€those€suspicionsÏremain€undisclosed)€is€not€relevant€for€purposes€of€òòMirandaóó.ðð€€€The€CourtÏexplained€thatÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 àan€officerððs€views€concerning€the€nature€of€anÏinterrogation,€or€beliefs€concerning€the€potentialÏculpability€of€the€individual€being€questioned€may€beÏone€among€many€factors€that€bear€upon€theÏassessment€whether€that€individual€was€in€custody,Ïò òbut€only€if€the€officerððs€views€or€beliefs€wereÍsomehow€manifested€to€the€individual€underÏinterrogation€and€would€have€affected€how€aÏreasonable€person€in€that€position€wouldÏperceive€his€or€her€freedom€to€leave.€ó óÌà@ àÌà8 àÌÌòòStansburyóó,€511€U.S.€at€___,€114€€S.€Ct.€at€1530€(emphasis€added).ÌÌÓÓÌÒ 4 ÒÒ Ð Òà àLikewise,€recent€decisions€of€this€Court€on€the€subject,€though€not€explicitlyÏoverruling€the€1970€òòMorrisóó€case,€have€recognized€that€the€focus€factor€has€beenÏexplicitly€repudiated€by€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€as€a€basis€forÏdetermining€whether€a€person€is€ð ðin€custodyðð€and€entitled€to€òòMirandaóó€warningsÏÑ , ÑÑ   ÑÑ  ÑÑ€' u` Ñprior€to€interrogation.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561,€569„571€(Tenn.Ï1993);€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530€(Tenn.€1992);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Cooperóó,Ï912€S.W.2d€756€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Although€lip€service€has€been€paid€inÏsome€past€appellate€decisions€in€this€State€to€the€continuing€viability€of€the€focusÏfactor,€in€reality€that€factor€has€not€been€relevant€to€the€assessment€of€whether€aÏperson€is€in€custody€since€the€United€States€Supreme€Courtððs€decision€inÏòòBeckwithóó€in€1976.€€Accordingly,€to€the€extent€that€òòMorrisóó€or€any€other€decisionsÏhold€or€indicate€that€the€focus€or€progress€of€the€investigation€factor€is€relevant€toÏthe€determination€of€whether€a€person€is€in€custody€and€entitled€to€òòMirandaóóÍwarnings,€they€are€overruled.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Hartmanóó,€703€S.W.2d€106,€120Ï(Tenn.€1985).× ƒ, ××  ×ÌÌà àHaving€determined€that€the€focus€or€progress€of€the€investigation€is€notÏrelevant€to€determine€whether€a€person€is€in€custody,€we€deem€it€necessary€toÏbriefly€delineate€some€of€the€factors€that€are€pertinent€to€the€inquiry.€€Again,€weÏemphasize€that€the€test€is€whether,€under€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€aÏreasonable€person€in€the€suspectððs€position€would€consider€himself€or€herselfÏdeprived€of€freedom€of€movement€to€a€degree€associated€with€a€formal€arrest.ÌÌà àSome€factors€relevant€to€that€objective€assessment€include€the€time€andÏlocation€of€the€interrogation;€the€duration€and€character€of€the€questioning;€theÏofficerððs€tone€of€voice€and€general€demeanor;€the€suspectððs€method€ofÏtransportation€to€the€place€of€questioning;€the€number€of€police€officers€present;Ïany€limitation€on€movement€or€other€form€of€restraint€imposed€on€the€suspectÏduring€the€interrogation;€any€interactions€between€the€officer€and€the€suspect,Ïincluding€the€words€spoken€by€the€officer€to€the€suspect,€and€the€suspectððs€verbalÏor€nonverbal€responses;€the€extent€to€which€the€suspect€is€confronted€with€the€lawÍenforcement€officerððs€suspicions€of€guilt€or€evidence€of€guilt;€and€finally,€the€extentÏto€which€the€suspect€is€made€aware€that€he€or€she€is€free€to€refrain€fromÏanswering€questions€or€to€end€the€interview€at€will.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€€òòPeople€v.€Draconóó,Ï884€P.2d€712€(Colo.€1994);€€òòLandreth€v.€Stateóó,€600€So.€2d€440€(Ala.€Cr.€App.Ï1992);€òòPeople€v.€Boyeróó,€638€N.E.2d€390€(Ill.€App.€1994);€òòState€v.€Mortleyóó,€532ÏN.W.2d€498€(Iowa€App.€1995);€òòUnited€States€v.€Fikeóó,€82€F.3d€1315€(5th€Cir.€1996);€ÏòòUnited€States€v.€Griffinóó,€7€F.3d€1512€(10th€Cir.€1993)€(citing€cases).€€The€listedÏfactors€are€by€no€means€exclusive.€€The€totality€of€the€circumstances€surroundingÏeach€interrogation€must€be€closely€examined€when€evaluating€whether€anÏindividual€is€in€custody€for€purposes€of€òòMirandaóó.€€€It€is€a€very€fact€specific€inquiry.€ÏApplication€of€the€appropriate,€relevant€factors€to€the€facts€is€a€task€for€which€theÏtrial€court€is€especially€suited.€€ÌÌà àIn€reaching€the€conclusion€that€Anderson€was€in€custody,€both€the€trialÏcourt€and€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals'€majority€emphasized€the€ð ðfocus€of€theÏinvestigationðð€factor,€which€is€irrelevant€in€this€case€since€the€law€enforcementÏofficials€never€communicated€their€suspicions€to€Anderson.€€We,€therefore,Ïreverse€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals'€judgment.ÌÌà àBecause€the€"in€custody"€determination€is€so€fact€specific€and€the€factualÏrecord€was€not€developed€with€the€new€standard€in€mind,€we€remand€to€the€trialÏcourt€for€reconsideration€of€Andersonððs€motion€to€suppress€in€accordance€with€theÏstandard€discussed€herein€and€the€facts€to€be€developed€in€the€trial€court.€€ÌÌÇà@ àòòò òCONCLUSIONóóó óÌà àAccordingly,€we€hold€that€the€appropriate€inquiry€in€determining€whetherÏan€individual€is€ð ðin€custodyðð€and€entitled€to€òòMirandaóó€warnings€is€whether,€underÏthe€totality€of€the€circumstances,€a€reasonable€person€in€the€suspectððs€positionÏwould€consider€himself€or€herself€deprived€of€freedom€of€movement€to€a€degreeÏassociated€with€a€formal€arrest.€The€test€is€objective€from€the€viewpoint€of€theÏsuspect,€and€the€unarticulated,€subjective€view€of€law€enforcement€officials€thatÏthe€individual€being€questioned€is€or€is€not€a€suspect€does€not€bear€upon€theÏquestion.€€Accordingly,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals'€judgment€is€reversed,€andÏthe€cause€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€application€of€the€standard€to€the€factsÏto€be€developed€in€this€case.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€defendant,€JoeÏL.€Anderson,€for€which€execution€may€issue.ÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àRILEY€ANDERSON,€JUSTICEÌÌÌÌò òCONCUR:ó óÌÌBirch,€C.J.ÌDrowota€and€Reid,€JJ.ÌÌÌWhite,€Not€ParticipatingÌÌ