result thereof. Cate, 165 Vt. at 415, 683 A.2d at 1018. ¶ 63. The circumstances surrounding the second set of incriminatory statements to the probation officer are even more indicative of a custody status. I would not remand this question, but rather conclude on these facts that defendant was subjected to custodial interrogation while in the probation office. Defendant was “arrested or detained” at his apartment and placed in handcuffs. It is clear that defendant was not free to leave. See LeClaire, 2003 VT 4, ¶ 16 (“To determine whether an individual is in custody for Miranda purposes, the ultimate inquiry is simply whether there is a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” (quotation omitted)); see also Cooley, 118 A.3d at 379 (<HOLDING>). Even the State agreed below. ¶ 64. After the
holding that a motion to intervene is not dispositive of a claim or defense of a party recognizing that while the use of handcuffs is not dispositive of custody analysis it is generally recognized as a hallmark of a formal arrest quotation omitted recognizing that party is not permitted to use the accident of a remand to raise an issue that it could just as well have raised in the first appeal internal quotation marks and alterations omitted holding that it is not recognizing that a strong causal connection is required quotation omitted