inquired of the officers about the accident, asking what he had hit or if anyone had been hurt. Harris then responded by stating that she did not believe anyone had been hurt, but that “we needed to respond back to the scene.” This exchange is critical to our review because the statement by Harris, under the circumstances of that morning, appears to indicate that defendant should return with them. Our jurisprudence contains cases in which we have held that if the police ask the defen dant to come to the station with them, a reasonable person would feel free to decline. On the other hand, we have held that police action constituted an arrest when police employ language that made it clear that the defendant had no choice in the matter. Compare State v. Kennedy, 569 A.2d 4, 5-6 (R.I.1990) (<HOLDING>) with State v. Mattatall, 510 A.2d 947, 951-52
holding the defendant was not under arrest when police asked him to go to the station and then offered him a ride because he did not have transportation holding that the defendant was placed in official detention when two police officers approached him and told him that he was under arrest as the defendant could not reasonably have believed that he was free to leave holding that accused was not in custody when asked to go to the police station and left the station freely holding that suspect was not in custody when officer handcuffed him for officer safety while transporting him to police station holding that transportation of arrestee to police station is service of police under the ada