throughout the course of the interview and that the “totality of the circumstances” makes clear that Nguyen’s statements were voluntary. See Photogrammetric Data Services, Inc., 259 F.3d at 241; Braxton, 112 F.3d at 781. In sum, because the May 15, 2001 interview was non-custodial and because Nguyen’s statements during the interview were voluntary, it follows that Miranda and its progeny do not bar the admissibility of the statements Nguyen made in the course of this interview. b. December 15, 2003 Interview The parties do not dispute that Nguyen was in custody at the December 15, 2003 interview as he was then incarcerated in the Arlington County Detention Center on unrelated state charges. See Mathis v. United States, 391 U.S. 1, 4-5, 88 S.Ct. 1503, 20 L.Ed.2d 381 (1968) (<HOLDING>). Thus, Detectives Lancaster and Grims were
holding that the the statement of the purpose of the law in question in the committee report is not conclusive and reiterating that the question is whether the law is reasonably calculated to achieve a legitimate police power purpose holding that even when there is a legitimate government purpose the discrimination must bear at least some rational relationship to that purpose holding miranda inapplicable because defendant not in custody holding that a defendant is in custody and miranda applies even when the purpose of defendants detention is unrelated to the purpose of the interrogation holding that rule 11 sanctions are not appropriate when a motion is filed in part for a legitimate purpose even when the motion includes certain evidence which is assertedly presented for an improper purpose