and the conversation in the car was unremarkable. These are not the facts of United States v. Ceballos, 812 F.2d 42, 45 (2d Cir.1987), in which law enforcement agents refused a suspect’s request to follow them in a company car to the interrogation site. As the federal court found, the agents’ refusal would have made a reasonable person feel obligated to accompany them. Id. at 48. Nor is this case like Myers v. State, 3 Md.App. 534, 535-36, 240 A.2d 288 (1968), in which a police vehicle essentially became an interrogation room, where the suspect was confined and questioned. As for Minehan’s interview at the police station, we recognize that each case must be judged on its own merits, although certain benchmarks have developed in the thirty-plus years of Miranda l d 246, 252-54 (2001) (<HOLDING>). All three of the factors discussed above
holding that waiver by attorney was binding upon the accused when before the state introduced the evidence complained of on appeal counsel for the state in the presence of the accused and his counsel stated the agreement and the evidence of the witness was then read to the jury in the presence of the accused and his counsel without objection holding that accused was not in custody when asked to go to the police station and left the station freely holding that police failure to inform the accused of his attorneys attempts to contact him and misstatements to the attorney as to whether the accused was at the police station did not violate the accuseds due process rights holding the defendant was not under arrest when police asked him to go to the station and then offered him a ride because he did not have transportation holding that accused was not in custody when asked to give his side of the story and then left the station unencumbered