account all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter, the police conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business.” Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Absent some exception, evidence obtained as a result of an illegal seizure, including evidence obtained by consent tainted by the illegal seizure, is inadmissible. See Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 507-08, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983). Depending on the facts, involuntary transportation to a police station or other custodial setting can be deemed a de facto arrest. See Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 816, 105 S.Ct. 1643, 84 L.Ed.2d 705 (1985) (<HOLDING>); Royer, 460 U.S. at 494-95, 504-07, 103 S.Ct.
holding that police executed an illegal arrest when they took a teenage suspect from his home and brought him in handcuffs to the police station for questioning holding that once the defendant has submitted to the control of the officer and the process of taking him or her to the police station  has commenced his or her arrest is complete and he or she is in custody for the purposes of the escape statute holding that accused was not in custody when asked to go to the police station and left the station freely holding that a de facto arrest had occurred where petitioner was not questioned briefly where he was found  but rather was taken  to a police car transported to a police station and placed in an interrogation room holding that an illegal arrest occurred when the defendant was transported without probable cause from his home to the police station for fingerprinting and that the line is crossed when the police without probable cause or a warrant forcibly remove a person from his home or other place in which he is entitled to be and transport him to the police station where he is detained although briefly for investigative purposes