-gave his statement up until that point [when Cisneros exited the room]. From that point forward, anything used in the presence of the jury, all that portion after the officer — including the search for clothes or shoes or any of that that came as a result, all of that is now suppressed. We hold that the evidence reasonably supports the trial court’s determination that Nickerson was not in custody during the first 66 minutes of the videotaped statement. See Ervin, 333 S.W.3d at 211 (concluding that defendant was not in custody when she went to police station voluntarily, voluntarily gave statements to police, was told she could leave, and remained unhandcuffed throughout statements); see also Gardner v. State, 433 S.W.3d 93, 99 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). Before the recorded interview, Cisneros told
holding that appellants complaint on appeal that the environment was coercive did not change the fact that he was not in custody when he voluntarily went to the police station was told several times he could leave and did leave after the interrogation holding that accused was not in custody when told he was not under arrest and was free to leave and did in fact freely leave the interview holding that defen dant was not in custody when he willingly accompanied the police to patrol car for both interviews was never handcuffed and was told that he could terminate interviews and leave car at any time holding that a defendant who was told several times he was not under arrest and who never asked to leave during an interview with investigators was not in custody holding that injury of plaintiff  who was detained in negligently parked patrol car that along with another patrol car was struck by thirdparty vehicle  did not arise out of use or operation of patrol car within meaning of ttcas motorvehicle waiver rather patrol car merely furnished condition that made injury possible