rule,” then this court may, in its discretion, determine that the interests of fairness preclude retroactive application of the new rule. See id. at 6-8, 18 P.3d at 208-10. Ah Loo did not announce a "new” rule, but, rather, merely clarilied the existing proposition that a person temporarily and lawfully detained need not be given Miranda warnings until the moment of express or implied accusation has arrived. See Ah Loo, 94 Hawai'i at 212, 10 P.3d at 733; Melemai, 64 Haw. at 482, 643 P.2d at 544; Patterson, 59 Haw. at 362-63, 581 P.2d at 756. As such, there is no "new Ah Loo rule" to which to give retroactive application in the first instance. 27 . We use the term "arrest” in this opinion to mean "physical” arrest. Cf. State v. Vallesteros, 84 Hawai'i 295, 301, 933 P.2d 632, 638 (1997) (<HOLDING>). 28 . Although the circuit court's COLs do not
holding that an arrest requires either physical force  or where that is absent submission to the assertion of authority holding avoiding arrest is not the same as resisting arrest holding that an arrest may involve either 1 taking the alleged violator into exlended physical custody or 2 issuing the individual a citation and noting that when we use the word arrest in this opinion we refer to physical arrest holding a defendants response to even an invalid arrest  may constitute independent grounds for arrest recognizing that an arrest requires either physical force  or where physical force is absent submission to the assertion of authority