leave; the officer warned N.A.S. that the charges were very serious and could affect the rest of his life; the officer's tone and demeanor were serious; and the mood was somber and intimidating, especially for a 13-year-old child. T41 Furthermore, schoolhouse interrogation may serve to amplify, rather than ease, a sense of restraint for a student "whose presence at school is compulsory and whose disobedience at school is cause for disciplinary action." J.D.B., 131 S.Ct. at 2405. The schoolhouse setting inherently curtails a child's freedom of movement. While arguably less restrictive than questioning at a police station, schoolhouse interrogation is far more custodial in nature than questioning a child at his house or over the phone. See People v. Howard, 92 P.3d 445, 452 (Colo.2004) (<HOLDING>); In re Interest of J.C., 844 P2d 1185, 1189-90
holding that defendant was not in custody during search of his residence holding that a 17yearold questioned by an officer in the driveway outside of his home was not in custody holding that a juvenile questioned by an officer over the phone was not in custody holding that defendant was in custody when police questioned him in his bedroom late at night holding that the sound of a television on the inside of the house and the presence of a car in the driveway were sufficient to form the basis of the reasonable belief that the suspect was in the home