the question is whether a reasonable jury could find that a person in the Gardenhires’ position would have felt free to leave. We agree with the district court’s analysis in concluding that a jury could find that a reasonable person in the Gardenhires’ position would not have felt free to leave. The undisputed facts the district court considered were that Chief Schubert: (1) told the Gardenhires at their residence they “needed to go” to the police station; (2) read them their Miranda rights at the police station; (3) questioned the Gardenhires extensively at the police station; (4) told the Garde unter intensified with the time the Gardenhires spent there and the fact that Chief Schubert read them their Miranda rights. See United States v. Obasa, 15 F.3d 603, 608 (6th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). The most compelling factor may be Officer
holding miranda inapplicable because defendant not in custody holding a fourth amendment terry detention is not a custodial arrest and the use of handcuffs does not automatically convert a temporary detention into a fourth amendment arrest holding that miranda warnings do not have to be given in the exact form stated in the miranda opinion as long as an effective equivalent is given holding defendant was in custody under miranda while being detained under terry holding police officer knew that miranda rights are required to be given only to individuals who are in custody and although giving miranda warnings to a detainee may not automatically convert a terry stop into an arrest it is evidence that the nature of the detention has grown more serious