to express questioning, and we must conclude that defendant made his statements as a result of custodial interrogation. Since defendant's statements were made in response to custodial interrogation without benefit of Miranda warnings, they cannot, therefore, be admissible. As the Supreme Court summarized its holding in Miranda: Our holding will be spelled out with some specificity in the pages which follow but briefly stated it is this: the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. at 444. See also State v. Miner, 22 Wn. App. 480, 482, 591 P.2d 812 (1979) (<HOLDING>). The State's argument that defendant's
holding that miranda does not apply to statements of the defendant which are voluntary and unsolicited and not the product of custodial interrogation holding that statements elicited during custodial interrogation of child are inadmissible unless parents are present holding that a consent to search is not an interrogation within the meaning of miranda  holding that voluntary statements to police initiated by witness are not interrogation and therefore are nontestimonial holding that  510 does not apply to unsolicited complaints