freedom of action such that he or she is "in custody.” Where we perhaps differ with the concurring and dissenting opinion is that we do not believe that the concrete answers to the abstract propositions set forth in its "framework” are invariably as self-evident as it suggests, particularly where the degree to which an infringement upon a person’s liberty becomes significant in one particular constitutional context is not coextensive with the significance of the deprivation of the person’s freedom of action in another. See, e.g., Ah Loo, 94 Hawai'i at 210-12, 10 P.3d at 731-33. 20 . That there is such an "exception” to the Miranda warnings required as a matter of federal law is beyond dispute. See, e.g., Muniz, 496 U.S. at 600-02 & n. 14, 110 S.Ct. 2638 (Brennan, J., plurality opinion) (<HOLDING>); id. at 608-12 (Marshall, J., concurring in
holding that there was no interrogation where the police asked only routine booking questions that did not relate even tangentially to criminal activity moreover there is no evidence that the defendant was particularly susceptible to these questions or that police somehow used the questions to elicit an incriminating response from the defendant holding that questions concerning the place and date of birth fall within the routine booking question exception to miranda holding that questions as to whether defendant was in the country legally were not routine booking questions but rather constituted interrogation requiring miranda warnings where defendant faced the charge of being an unlawful alien in possession of a firearm recognizing routine booking question exception observing that the underlying rationale for the exception is that routine booking questions do not constitute interrogation because they do not normally elicit incriminating responses and holding that where questions regarding normally routine biographical information are designed to elicit incriminating information the questioning constitutes interrogation subject to the strictures of miranda   citations omitted holding that questions regarding a defendants name address height weight eye color birth date and current age constituted custodial interrogation but fell within the  routine booking question exception which exempts from mirandas coverage questions to secure the biographical data necessary to complete booking or pretrial services but observing that that the exception would not apply to questions posed during the booking process that are designed to elicit incriminatory admissions citations and internal quotation signals omitted