of the cases with home interviews also involved searches. See McAllister, 807 A.2d at 1126 (determining Miranda warnings not required where probation officers searched probationer’s home in response to tip and probationer “was in his own home, to which he had come freely, there were no police officers present, the probation officers were not armed or blocking his exit in any way, and the questioning was direct and brief’); Christensen, 360 P.3d at 352 (concluding interrogation was noncustodial when parolee was questioned in his own home, by his parole officer, in “low-key” and “relaxed” manner for sixty minutes and noting fact police officers were simultaneously conducting a search of parolee’s home “did not make the encounter police-dominated”); Hermosillo, 2014-NMCA-102, ¶¶ 26-29 (<HOLDING>); Hedlund, 2009 WL 1373670, at *2-3 (finding no
holding that testimony by police officer to effect that informant told him that defendant and his accomplice had come to informants home and discussed purchase of five kilograms of cocaine was not hearsay because statement was made by informant who was authorized by defendant to communicate such information to police officer under rule 801e2c holding that discharge of a police officer for the choice to enter into a relationship with the wife of his superior officer on the force was rational holding that defendant was seized where the officer told defendant that she knew that he was on probation defendant admitted to the officer that he had given her a false name and defendant was asked for consent to search a backpack because a reasonable inference was that defendant was the subject of a continuing investigation and his or her freedom of movement had been significantly restricted by the officers show of authority holding that the initial stop by officer was based on reasonable suspicion that defendant was impersonating a police officer although another officer arrested defendant for privacy act violation holding probationary home visit not transformed into custodial interrogation although defendant was handcuffed and told to remain seated while officers searched because visit occurred in defendants home a noncustodial setting defendant had tested positive for drugs and could reasonably expect that his probation officer might conduct a home visit to investigate these violations defendant was not isolated or overwhelmed by the police presence even though drug task force officer accompanied probation officer and there was no evidence of force in relation to the handcuffing or isolation in a secure location or confinement