public place where he had a right to be”); United States v. Ceballos, 812 F.2d 42, 45-46, 48-50 (2d Cir. 1987) (stating that an illegal arrest occurred when the- defendant was asked to accompany agents to a field office, the agents did not convey that he had a choice in the matter, and he was then placed “in a small, locked interview room” and questioned for several hours); United States v. Martinez, 808 F.2d 1050, 1055 (5th Cir. 1987) (stating that “[t]he removal of the suspect from the scene of the stop to police headquarters usually marks the point at which an investigative stop becomes a de facto arrest,” but concluding that the officer had probable cause at the time he transported the defendant to the station); United States v. Gonzalez, 763 F.2d 1127, 1128, 1133 (10th Cir. 1985) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Moreno, 742 F.2d 532, 534,
holding that suspect was not in custody when officer handcuffed him for officer safety while transporting him to police station 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 go to the police station and left the station freely holding that the encounter between an officer and the defendant did not rise to the level of a terry stop until the defendant gave the officer his license and the officer informed the defendant that he was going to be given a patdown 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