includes more than just express questioning, it extends “only to words or actions on the part of police officers that they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.” Id. at 302, 100 S.Ct. at 1690 (emphasis deleted). Drawing on his Sixth Amendment arguments that Cooper was a government agent and deliberately elicited incriminating remarks from him, Franklin urges that Cooper’s acceptance of his telephone call was the equivalent of police interrogation. Such a reading would strain the meaning of Miranda and its progeny. Franklin’s call to Cooper was simply not the “sort of coercive environment to which Miranda by its terms was made applicable, and to which it is limited.” Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495, 97 S.Ct. 711, 714, 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977) (<HOLDING>); see also Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S.
holding defendant was in custody under miranda while being detained under terry holding a defendant was not in custody for purposes of miranda after he consented to go to police headquarters holding that defendant was not in miranda custody during knock and talk interview at his residence holding miranda inapplicable because defendant not in custody holding on collateral review that miranda rule did not apply to confession because petitioner was tried before miranda decision