later, at the store, that they “needed to go” to the Justice Center; (5) instructed them that they “needed to follow” a police officer to the station; and (6) advised the Garde-nhires that they would be booked on criminal charges and released on bond. Based on these facts, a jury could find that a reasonable person in the Garde-nhires’ position would have felt that they were not free to leave. A police officer’s statement that “you need to go” somewhere carries substantial authoritative weight. We think very few people could hear such a directive from a police officer and still think they were free to act otherwise. Once the police removed the Garde-nhires from their home to the police station, the encounter took on an arrest-like nature. See Hayes, 470 U.S. at 816, 105 S.Ct. 1643 (<HOLDING>). The custodial nature of the police station
holding that once the defendant has submitted to the control of the officer and the process of taking him or her to the police station  has commenced his or her arrest is complete and he or she is in custody for the purposes of the escape statute holding that police executed an illegal arrest when they took a teenage suspect from his home and brought him in handcuffs to the police station for questioning holding that the line separating a terry stop and an arrest is crossed when police forcibly remove a person from his home or other place in which he is entitled to be and transport him to the police station where he is detained although briefly for investigative purposes holding that a de facto arrest had occurred where petitioner was not questioned briefly where he was found  but rather was taken  to a police car transported to a police station and placed in an interrogation room holding that an initially lawful terry stop can be converted into a fullfledged arrest for which probable cause is required but noting that there is no bright line rule for determining when an investigatory stop crosses the line and becomes an arrest