gun off of them, make them more nervous and make the situation even worse." JA 130. On the other hand, “if somebody who has a gun knows that the police know [they] have a gun ... it makes the situation a little bit easier.” JA 129. In addition, "if I know it’s a gun, I can go inside of his pocket more carefully and get it out rather than just going in there and not knowing what it is.” JA 129-30. 6 . Warnings pursuant to Miranda are required only if a suspect is both in custody and subject to interrogation. Here, the parties agree that Duncan was subject to custodial interrogation. Duncan was in custody for Fifth Amendment purposes because Astbury was attempting to restrain Duncan while frisking him. See California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125, 103 S.Ct. 3517, 77 L.Ed.2d 1275 (1983) (<HOLDING>) (quotation marks omitted). Astbury's question
holding that fifth amendment custody is a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest holding that lawful detention under rule 31 does not curtail a persons freedom of action to a degree associated with a formal arrest such that a miranda warning is required holding that a fourth amendment seizure of a fleeing suspect occurs only when there is a governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied  holding that there was a restraint of movement to the degree associated with formal arrest when juvenile went to stationhouse for interview but magistrate read defendant his mircmda warnings defendants grandmother was excluded from interview despite her request and defendant was alone in locked interrogation room with armed officer holding that a fourth amendment violation entails governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied 