suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information, may be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time.” 407 U.S. at 146, 92 S.Ct. at 1923. The Cheung Tin Wong court concluded that whether the INS investigator’s actions in that case were characterized as “mere questioning” or a “brief stop of a suspicious individual . . .” they should be tested according to the standard of whether he had a reasonable suspicion that the petitioner was an alien' at the time he stopped the taxi. The court found that the investigator’s actions had been justified under that standard. 152 U.S.App.D.C. 70-71, 468 F.2d at 1127-28. See also Au Yi Lau, supra, 144 U.S.App.D.C. at 153—54, 445 F.2d at 223-24 (<HOLDING>). The principles articulated in Au Yi Lau and
holding landlord jointly liable when he knew of or acquiesced in the tenants trespass holding that custodial interrogation by police must not occur prior to suspect being informed of his or her right to counsel and against selfincrimination holding defendant was in custody under miranda while being detained under terry holding that defendant was in custody when police questioned him in his bedroom late at night recognizing that one accosted in apparent attempt to avoid being questioned was not clearly detained against his will when he thereafter readily acquiesced in the investigators interrogation