finds that, based upon the specific circumstances of this case, a reasonable person in Davis’ position would not have perceived the request to talk in private as prohibiting his freedom to leave. Namely, there is no evidence that either Sergeant Boggs or Sheriff Peters commanded Davis’ presence in the patrol ear. Rather, Sergeant Boggs merely communicated to Sheriff Peters, in Davis’ presence, that a patrol car would offer more “privacy” given that “people” were beginning to “gather around.” (P-4 at 721, 675.) Additionally, once at the unmarked patrol car, the testimony indicates that Sheriff Peters did not direct Davis to sit in the back seat of the patrol ear. Rather, Sheriff Peters testified that Davis sat in the back seat on his own accord, with no prompting from him. Ther 2000) (<HOLDING>). Finally, the interview in the patrol car
holding that a defendant who voluntarily rode to the station with officers in a police car waited in a lobby with unlocked external doors and was told more than once he was not under arrest was not in custody holding that a de facto arrest had occurred where petitioner was not questioned briefly where he was found  but rather was taken  to a police car transported to a police station and placed in an interrogation room holding on habeas review that defendant was not in custody for miranda purposes and reciting among other facts that defendant was transported to a police station for questioning in an unmarked police car which was not equipped with a shield inside the car holding on direct review that defendant was not in custody when he was interviewed by law enforcement officers in a parked police vehicle which was unmarked and unlocked holding a defendant was not in custody for purposes of miranda after he consented to go to police headquarters