that any other suspect was sought or questioned. Indeed, once the defendant had admitted to being involved in the incident there was no need fo estioning occurs when the ‘police have reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed and also reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant committed it.’ ” Sampson, 808 P.2d at 1105-06 (quoting Carner, 664 P.2d at 1171). Even assuming that the initial questioning in this case was merely investigatory, the questioning became inarguably accusatory when defendant admitted that he was the man involved in the incident and that he had been masturbating immediately prior to the allegedly lewd display. Turning from the form of interrogative to the length of interrogation, it is evident that the questioning las 465, 476 (D.P.R.1982) (<HOLDING>). We believe that these decisions represent a
holding that defendants status as police officer did not obviate the requirement of miranda holding that miranda warnings do not have to be given in the exact form stated in the miranda opinion as long as an effective equivalent is given holding that defendants occupation as an attorney did not relieve police officers of giving him the requisite miranda warnings holding police officer knew that miranda rights are required to be given only to individuals who are in custody and although giving miranda warnings to a detainee may not automatically convert a terry stop into an arrest it is evidence that the nature of the detention has grown more serious holding that the warnings in their totality satisfied miranda