by telling the accused he or she is only a witness, when, in fact, the person is a suspect. Mathiason, 429 U.S. at 495-96, 97 S.Ct. 711; see also Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341, 347, 96 S.Ct. 1612, 48 L.Ed.2d 1 (1976); Cummings, 27 Md.App, at 379-80, 341 A.2d 294. Police may also exaggerate the evidence they have accumulated against the person being interviewed. See Mathiason, 429 U.S. at 495-96, 97 S.Ct. 711. A third factor, perhaps most important for this case, is that there is rarely custody when the person questioned leaves the interrogation unencumbered, only to be arrested at a later time. See Bartram v. State, 33 Md.App. 115, 148-49, 364 A.2d 1119 (1976); Cummings, 27 Md.App. at 378-79, 341 A.2d 294; see also United States v. Scully, 415 F.2d 680, 683-84 (2d Cir.1969) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Manglona, 414 F.2d 642, 644
holding that accused was not in custody when asked to give his side of the story and then left the station unencumbered holding that accused was not in custody when asked to go to the police station and left the station freely 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 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 that having the defendant follow an officer to a police station three to four miles away after the officer had asked for and retained the defendants drivers license reg istration and title was not permissible as part of a terry stop and stating that we understand the hayes decision as eliminating the option of forcing the suspect to go to the police station from the alternatives available to the officer during an investigative detention