Moreover, the issue of parental involvement, at the behest of police officials, to arrange the police interview with Alvarado and the subsequent refusal by police to let his parents attend the interview are certainly relevant issues in the totality of circumstances. See Thompson, 516 U.S. at 113, 116 S.Ct. 457 (stating that “in custody” determination is made against the backdrop of historical facts that make up the “totality of circumstances”); see also note 3, supra. Considering these additional factors in the objective determination of custodial status, we do not believe that a reasonable 17-year-old in Alvarado’s position would have felt “at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.” Thompson, 516 U.S. at 112, 116 S.Ct. 457; cf. Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 442, 104 S.Ct. 3138 (<HOLDING>). B. We proceed now to the second level of the
holding that materiality is established if a reasonable man would attach importance to its existence or nonexistence in determining his choice of action in the transaction in question holding that the relevant dispositive inquiry  is whether it would be clear to a reasonable state official that his conduct was unlawful holding that it is only by looking at how similarly situated entities acted in a similar situation that a factfinder may determine what was commercially reasonable holding that the only relevant inquiry in an in custody determination is how a reasonable man in the suspects position would have understood his situation holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint