the restraint on his freedom of movement associated with a formal arrest. Defendant correctly points out he was told by Officer Robb that he was “detained” while he waited on the curb for the detectives to arrive. However, any custody associated with the detention ended when defendant left Robb and voluntarily accompanied Detectives Copeland and Taylor. Robb also told defendant more than once that he was not under arrest, a status investigators confirmed when they arrived, and any conflict engendered in defendant’s mind by being told at the outset that he was being detained pending the investigators’ arrival necessarily dissipated when those investigators appeared and specifically told defendant he was not under arrest. See State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647, 658-63, 483 S.E.2d 396, 402-06 (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 900, 139 L. Ed. 2d 177
holding that farm workers who voluntarily choose to ride employers bus to and from field were engaged in noncompensable travel holding that a transfer to night patrol from the intelligence unit was a demotion where evidence revealed that the intelligence unit positions were more prestigious had better working hours and were more interesting than night patrol and the few officers voluntarily transferred from the intelligence unit to night patrol and other officers had been so transferred as punishment holding that the juvenile defendants who voluntarily left their homes in the middle of night to ride to the police department in patrol cars and who were told they were not under arrest were not in custody 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 defendant who was told several times he was not under arrest and who never asked to leave during an interview with investigators was not in custody