(punctuation omitted). 14 See Tolliver v. State, 273 Ga. 785,786 (546 SE2d 525) (2001) (“[A] law enforcement officer coming upon the scene of suspected criminal activity will conduct a general on-the-scene investigation and may detain temporarily anyone at the scene. Such detentions do not trigger the requirements of Miranda v. Arizona.” (punctuation omitted)); Crider v. State, 319 Ga. App. 567, 568 (737 SE2d 344) (2013) (same). 15 Crider, 319 Ga. App. at 568 (punctuation omitted). 16 Id. (punctuation omitted). 17 Hale v. State, 310 Ga. App. 363, 366 (1) (714 SE2d 19) (2011); see also Price v. State, 269 Ga. 222, 225 (3) (498 SE2d 262) (1998) (“The test of ‘in custody is whether a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would have thought d); see also Mosley, 321 Ga. App. at 239-40 (<HOLDING>); Appling v. State, 320 Ga. App. 379, 381-82
holding in the context of a prosecution for second degree escape that although defendant was not handcuffed he had nonetheless been placed under arrest had had his liberty restrained in that he was not free to leave and at that point the first step in the process of transporting him to the police station had begun consequently the defendants arrest was complete and he was in custody holding a defendant was not in custody for purposes of miranda after he consented to go to police headquarters holding on habeas review that defendant was not in custody for miranda purposes and reciting among other facts that defendant was transported to a police station for questioning in an unmarked police car which was not equipped with a shield inside the car holding miranda inapplicable because defendant not in custody holding that defendant was not in custody for miranda purposes when fieldsobriety tests were conducted and when deputy responded in the negative to defendants question of whether he was under arrest and never placed defendant in handcuffs or in the back of a patrol car during the questioning