she is free to leave, State v. Kemmerlin, 356 N.C. 446, 457, 573 S.E.2d 870, 880 (2002), whether the suspect is handcuffed, we do not find that “a reasonable person in defendant’s position would have believed that he was under arrest or was restrained in his movement to that significant degree.” Garcia, 358 N.C. at 396-97, 597 S.E.2d at 737. As a result, defendant was not in custody when he arrived at the Raleigh Police Station on the morning of 9 November 2005, nor was he placed in custody upon entering the interview room or during the interviews prior to his acknowledgment that he stabbed the victim. Because these statements were voluntary and would have been admissible if offered into evidence, no issue arises under Missouri v. Seibert. 542 U.S. 600 passim, 159 L. Ed. 2d 643 passim (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the statements made after
holding that statements elicited during custodial interrogation of child are inadmissible unless parents are present holding that in the absence of police coercion a subsequent administration of miranda warnings to a suspect who has given a voluntary but unwarned statement ordinarily should suffice to remove the conditions that precluded admission of the earlier statement holding that a statement given after miranda warnings have been administered may be inadmissable when police have elicited a previous unwarned statement during a custodial interrogation holding that although defendants voluntarily given initial statement was inadmissible because of miranda violation subsequent statement made after careful miranda warnings were given and waiver was obtained was admissible holding that police officers sworn affidavit that miranda warnings were given was held sufficient to deny suppression of defendants postarrest statement in the absence of properlysupported statement by defendant to the contrary